ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2016
Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.
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 146 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
146 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reassessing the Benefits and Harms of Risk-Reducing Medication Considering the Persistent Risk of Breast Cancer Mortality in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models.British journal of cancer · 2019Pooled it
- Development and validation of a model and nomogram for breast cancer diagnosis based on quantitative analysis of serum disease-specific haptoglobin N-glycosylation.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Trial
- Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Persuasive Interventions for Controversial Cancer Screening Recommendations: Testing a Novel Approach to Help Patients Make Evidence-Based Decisions.Annals of family medicine · 2017Trial
- Article
- How BI-RADS v2025 Helps Patients: New Audits and Method of Detection.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Moving From Individualized Risk-Based Prevention to Benefit-Based Prevention: Estimating Individualized Life-Years Gained From Prevention Services as a Basis for Eligibility.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Density-Targeted Supplemental Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening by Breast Cancer Risk: Long-Term Health and Economic Considerations.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Five-Year Absolute Risk-Based and Age-Based Breast Cancer Screening in the US.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Screening Outcomes of Supplemental Automated Breast Ultrasound in Women With Nondense Breasts Undergoing Mammography.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Exploring Bayesian adaptive designs in multi-arm randomized controlled trials with a patient preference arm.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2025Article
- Modeling Early-Onset Cancer Kinetics Reveals Changes in Underlying Risk and the Impact of Population Screening.Cancer research · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Modalities for Breast Cancer in European Countries.Cancers · 2025Review
- A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Characteristics of Participants and Findings of the National Breast Cancer Early Detection Program in Saudi Arabia.Cancers · 2025Article
- Mammography screening and risk factor prevalence by sexual identity: A comparison of two national surveys.Cancer · 2025Article
- Modeling early-onset cancer kinetics to study changes in underlying risk, detection, and impact of population screening.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Article
86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundControversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.
objectiveTo evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.
designCollaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.
settingUnited States. PATIENTS: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.
interventionEight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. MEASUREMENTS: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.
resultsBiennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. LIMITATION: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.
conclusionBiennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.