Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26756332›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2016

The Effect of Treatment Advances on the Mortality Results of Breast Cancer Screening Trials: A Microsimulation Model.

Jeanette Birnbaum, Vijayakrishna K Gadi, Elan Markowitz, Ruth Etzioni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of microsimulation models for skin cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Matching Microsimulation Risk Factor Correlations to Cross-sectional Data: The Shortest Distance Method.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Population-based screening for cancer: hope and hype.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2016
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jeanette Birnbaum
Vijayakrishna K Gadi
Elan Markowitz
Ruth Etzioni

Funding

Estimating Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening StudiesR01CA192402 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2015 to 2018
$2.3M
CANTRANce: A tool to translate intermediate endpoints to mortality in CE studiesRC4CA155806 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2010 to 2010
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA192402NCI NIH HHS RC4 CA155806
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMammography trials, which are the primary sources of evidence for screening benefit, were conducted decades ago. Whether advances in systemic therapies have rendered previously observed benefits of screening less significant is unknown.

objectiveTo compare the outcomes of breast cancer screening trials had they been conducted using contemporary systemic treatments with outcomes of trials conducted with previously used treatments.

designComputer simulation model of 3 virtual screening trials with similar reductions in advanced-stage cancer cases but reflecting treatment patterns in 1975 (prechemotherapy era), 1999, or 2015 (treatment according to receptor status). DATA SOURCES: Meta-analyses of screening and treatment trials; study of dissemination of primary systemic treatments; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. women aged 50 to 74 years. TIME HORIZON: 10 and 25 years. PERSPECTIVE: Population.

interventionMammography, chemotherapy, tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and trastuzumab. OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast cancer mortality rate ratio (MRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) obtained by the difference in cumulative breast cancer mortality between control and screening groups. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: At 10 years, screening in a 1975 trial yielded an MRR of 90% and an ARR of 5 deaths per 10,000 women. A 2015 screening trial yielded a 10-year MRR of 90% and an ARR of 3 deaths per 10,000 women. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Greater reductions in advanced-stage disease yielded a greater screening effect, but MRRs remained similar across trials. However, ARRs were consistently lower under contemporary treatments. When contemporary treatments were available only for early-stage cases, the MRR was 88%. LIMITATION: Disease models simplify reality and cannot capture all breast cancer subtypes.

conclusionAdvances in systemic therapies for breast cancer have not substantively reduced the relative benefits of screening but have likely reduced the absolute benefits because of their positive effect on breast cancer survival. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: University of Washington and National Cancer Institute.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMammographyMass ScreeningAgedAntineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingUnited StatesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID26756332
PMCPMC5356482

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.