Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26655422›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2016

Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study.

Stephen W Duffy, Amanda Dibden, Dimitrios Michalopoulos, Judith Offman, Dharmishta Parmar, Jacquie Jenkins, Beverley Collins, Tony Robson, Suzanne Scorfield, Kathryn Green and 8 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen W DuffyPolicy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis, Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK. Electronic address: s.w.duffy@qmul.ac.uk.
Amanda DibdenPolicy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis, Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK.
Dimitrios MichalopoulosCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK.
Judith OffmanCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK.
Dharmishta ParmarPolicy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis, Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK.
Jacquie JenkinsEast Midlands QARC, Nottingham University Hospital City Campus, Nottingham, UK.
Beverley CollinsEast of England QARC, Histon, Cambridge, UK.
Tony RobsonLondon QARC, London, UK.
Suzanne ScorfieldYorkshire and Humber QARC, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Kathryn GreenNorth West QARC, Albert St, Hollinwood, Oldham, UK.
Clare HallNorthern Ireland QARC, Belfast, UK.
Xiao-Hui LiaoSouth Central QARC, Oxford, UK.
Michael RyanSouth East Coast QARC, Battle, East Sussex, UK.
Fiona JohnsonSouth West QARC, Clifton, Bristol, UK.
Guy StevensPublic Health Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Olive KearinsWest Midlands QARC, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sarah SellarsNational Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield, UK.
Julietta PatnickNational Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBNational Cancer Registration Service · GBEast Sussex County Council · GBNottingham City Hospital · GBPublic Health Wales · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16892Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe value of screen detection and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a matter of controversy. At present, the extent to which the diagnosis and treatment of DCIS could prevent the occurrence of invasive breast cancer in the future is not clear. We sought to estimate the association between detection of DCIS at screening and invasive interval cancers subsequent to the relevant screen.

methodsWe obtained aggregate data for screen-detected cancers from 84 local screening units within 11 regional Quality Assurance Reference Centres in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Data for DCIS diagnoses were obtained for women aged 50-64 years who were invited to and attended mammographic breast screening from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2007 (4 screening years). Patient-level data for interval cancer arising in the 36 months after each of these were analysed by Poisson regression with invasive interval cancer screen detection rate as the outcome variable; DCIS detection frequencies were fitted first as a continuous and then as a categorical variable. We repeated this analysis after adjustment with both small size and high-grade invasive screen-detected cancers.

findingsWe analysed data for 5,243,658 women and on interval cancers occurring in the 36 months after the relevant screen. The average frequency of DCIS detected at screening was 1·60 per 1000 women screened (median 1·50 [unit range 0·54-3·56] [corrected to] per 1000 women). There was a significant negative association of screen-detected DCIS cases with the rate of invasive interval cancers (Poisson regression coefficient -0·084 [95% CI -0·13 to -0·03]; p=0·002). 90% of units had a DCIS detection frequency within the range of 1·00 to 2·22 per 1000 women; in these units, for every three screen-detected cases of DCIS, there was one fewer invasive interval cancer in the next 3 years. This association remained after adjustment for numbers of small screen-detected invasive cancers and for numbers of grade 3 invasive screen-detected cancers.

interpretationThe association between screen-detected DCIS and subsequent invasive interval cancers suggests that detection and treatment of DCIS is worthwhile in prevention of future invasive disease.

fundingUK Department of Health Policy Research Programme and NHS Cancer Screening Programmes.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26655422
PMCPMC4691349
OpenAlexW2183086862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.