Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26537645›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2016

Towards personalized screening: Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes in women with and without a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer.

Theodora Maria Ripping, Rebecca A Hubbard, Johannes D M Otten, Gerard J den Heeten, André L M Verbeek, Mireille J M Broeders

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cumulative Risk Distribution for Interval Invasive Second Breast Cancers After Negative Surveillance Mammography.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Theodora Maria RippingRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Rebecca A HubbardDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Johannes D M OttenRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Gerard J den HeetenDutch Reference Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
André L M VerbeekRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Mireille J M BroedersRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLDutch Expert Centre for Screening · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Statistical Methods for Estimation of Benefits & Harms of Repeat Cancer ScreeningR03CA182986 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HUBBARD, REBECCA · 2014 to 2015
$160k
NCI NIH HHS R03 CA182986NCI NIH HHS R03CA182986
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several reviews have estimated the balance of benefits and harms of mammographic screening in the general population. The balance may, however, differ between individuals with and without family history. Therefore, our aim is to assess the cumulative risk of screening outcomes; screen-detected breast cancer, interval cancer, and false-positive results, in women screenees aged 50-75 and 40-75, with and without a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer at the start of screening. Data on screening attendance, recall and breast cancer detection were collected for each woman living in Nijmegen (The Netherlands) since 1975. We used a discrete time survival model to calculate the cumulative probability of each major screening outcome over 19 screening rounds. Women with a family history of breast cancer had a higher risk of all screening outcomes. For women screened from age 50-75, the cumulative risk of screen-detected breast cancer, interval cancer and false-positive results were 9.0, 4.4 and 11.1% for women with a family history and 6.3, 2.7 and 7.3% for women without a family history, respectively. The results for women 40-75 followed the same pattern for women screened 50-75 for cancer outcomes, but were almost doubled for false-positive results. To conclude, women with a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer are more likely to experience benefits and harms of screening than women without a family history. To complete the balance and provide risk-based screening recommendations, the breast cancer mortality reduction and overdiagnosis should be estimated for family history subgroups.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNetherlandsPedigreeRisk Factorsbreast cancerfalse positivefamily historyinterval cancermammographyscreen-detectedscreening

Identifiers

PMID26537645
PMCPMC4983681
OpenAlexW2134775762

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.