ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016
Breast cancer risk feedback to women in the UK NHS breast screening population.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.
- Studies of parenchymal texture added to mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of the methods used in the literature.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2022Pooled it
- Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).British journal of cancer · 2023Trial
- Identification of women at risk of hereditary breast-ovarian cancer among participants in a population-based breast cancer screening.Familial cancer · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Associations of coffee, alcohol, medication and supplement use with the metabolome and lipidome: an observational study of premenopausal women.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2026Observational
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of genetic risk-stratified screening for breast cancer in Taiwan.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Delivering Multifactorial Risk Assessment and Communication for Personalized Breast Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Study Exploring Implementation in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- CanRisk-GP protocol: A feasibility study of incorporating proactive multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment into general practice.PloS one · 2025Article
- Public acceptability and anticipated uptake of risk-stratified bowel cancer screening in the UK: An online survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of Dynamic 5-Year Breast Cancer Risk Model Using Repeated Mammograms.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening in Denmark - a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a population-based survey among 5,001 Danish women.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Article
- How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2023Article
- Breast cancer risk assessment and risk distribution in 3,491 Slovenian women invited for screening at the age of 50; a population-based cross-sectional study.Radiology and oncology · 2023Article
- What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
2 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
18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere are widespread moves to develop risk-stratified approaches to population-based breast screening. The public needs to favour receiving breast cancer risk information, which ideally should produce no detrimental effects. This study investigates risk perception, the proportion wishing to know their 10-year risk and whether subsequent screening attendance is affected.
methodsFifty thousand women attending the NHS Breast Screening Programme completed a risk assessment questionnaire. Ten-year breast cancer risks were estimated using a validated algorithm (Tyrer-Cuzick) adjusted for visually assessed mammographic density. Women at high risk (⩾8%) and low risk (<1%) were invited for face-to-face or telephone risk feedback and counselling.
resultsOf those invited to receive risk feedback, more high-risk women, 500 out of 673 (74.3%), opted to receive a consultation than low-risk women, 106 out of 193 (54.9%) (P<0.001). Women at high risk were significantly more likely to perceive their risk as high (P<0.001) and to attend their subsequent mammogram (94.4%) compared with low-risk women (84.2%; P=0.04) and all attendees (84.3%; ⩽0.0001).
conclusionsPopulation-based assessment of breast cancer risk is feasible. The majority of women wished to receive risk information. Perception of general population breast cancer risk is poor. There were no apparent adverse effects on screening attendance for high-risk women whose subsequent screening attendance was increased.
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.