Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26501844›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2015

Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.

Diana L Miglioretti, Weiwei Zhu, Karla Kerlikowske, Brian L Sprague, Tracy Onega, Diana S M Buist, Louise M Henderson, Robert A Smith, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Breast Cancer Screening Interval: Effect on Rate of Late-Stage Disease at Diagnosis and Overall Survival.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Impact of Breast Cancer Screening on 10-Year Net Survival in Canadian Women Age 40-49 Years.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Misinformation and Facts about Breast Cancer Screening.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Diana L MigliorettiDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis2Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington.
Weiwei ZhuGroup Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco,4General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco.
Brian L SpragueDepartment of Surgery, Office of Health Promotion Research, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington6University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington.
Tracy OnegaDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire8Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Diana S M BuistGroup Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington.
Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Robert A SmithCancer Control Science Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KARLA M KERLIKOWSKE · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P01CA154292NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303NCI NIH HHS U54CA163303PHS HHS HHSN261201100031C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceScreening mammography intervals remain under debate in the United States.

objectiveTo compare the proportion of breast cancers with less vs more favorable prognostic characteristics in women screening annually vs biennially by age, menopausal status, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis was a study of a prospective cohort from 1996 to 2012 at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. A total of 15,440 women ages 40 to 85 years with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of an annual or within 2 years of a biennial screening mammogram. EXPOSURES: We updated previous analyses by using narrower intervals for defining annual (11-14 months) and biennial (23-26 months) screening. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We defined less favorable prognostic characteristics as tumors that were stage IIB or higher, size greater than 15 mm, positive nodes, and any 1 or more of these characteristics. We used log-binomial regression to model the proportion of breast cancers with less favorable characteristics following a biennial vs annual screen by 10-year age groups and by menopausal status and current postmenopausal HT use.

resultsAmong 15,440 women with breast cancer, most were 50 years or older (13,182 [85.4%]), white (12,063 [78.1%]), and postmenopausal (9823 [63.6%]). Among 2027 premenopausal women (13.1%), biennial screeners had higher proportions of tumors that were stage IIB or higher (relative risk [RR], 1.28 [95% CI, 1.01-1.63]; P=.04), size greater than 15 mm (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07-1.37]; P=.002), and with any less favorable prognostic characteristic (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00-1.22]; P=.047) compared with annual screeners. Among women currently taking postmenopausal HT, biennial screeners tended to have tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics compared with annual screeners; however, 95% CIs were wide, and differences were not statistically significant (for stage 2B+, RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.89-1.47], P=.29; size>15 mm, RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.98-1.31], P=.09; node positive, RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.98-1.42], P=.09; any less favorable characteristic, RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.25], P=.053). The proportions of tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics were not significantly larger for biennial vs annual screeners among postmenopausal women not taking HT (eg, any characteristic: RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.95-1.12]; P=.45), postmenopausal HT users after subdividing by type of hormone use (eg, any characteristic: estrogen+progestogen users, RR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.91-1.47]; P=.22; estrogen-only users, RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.94-1.37]; P=.18), or any 10-year age group (eg, any characteristic: ages 40-49 years, RR, .1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.14]; P=.48; ages 50-59 years, RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.94-1.12]; P=.58; ages 60-69 years, RR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.97-1.19]; P=.18; ages 70-85 years, RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.94-1.18]; P=.35). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Premenopausal women diagnosed as having breast cancer following biennial vs annual screening mammography are more likely to have tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics. Postmenopausal women not using HT who are diagnosed as having breast cancer following a biennial or annual screen have similar proportions of tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics.

Indexed as

PostmenopausePremenopauseAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHormone Replacement TherapyHumansLymphatic MetastasisMammographyMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26501844
PMCPMC4644100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.