Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28183141›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2017

Mammography service screening and breast cancer mortality in New Zealand: a National Cohort Study 1999-2011.

Stephen Morrell, Richard Taylor, David Roder, Bridget Robson, Marli Gregory, Kirsty Craig

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Breast Cancer Screening Interval: Effect on Rate of Late-Stage Disease at Diagnosis and Overall Survival.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephen MorrellSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of NSW, Level 2, Samuels Building, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Richard TaylorSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of NSW, Level 2, Samuels Building, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
David RoderSansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Bridget RobsonUniversity of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Marli GregoryBreast Screen Aotearoa, National Screening Unit, Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand.
Kirsty CraigBreast Screen Aotearoa, National Screening Unit, Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand.
Ministry of Health · NZUniversity of Otago · NZUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis breast cancer mortality evaluation of service screening mammography in New Zealand, the first since commencement of screening in 1999, applies to the 1999-2011 diagnostic period. Individual-level linked information on mammography screening, breast cancer diagnosis and breast cancer mortality is used to analyse differences in breast cancer mortality according to participation in organised screening mammography, as provided by BreastScreen Aotearoa (BSA).

methodsWomen were followed from the time they became eligible for screening, from age 50 years (1999-2004) and 45 years (⩾2004). Breast cancer mortality from cancers diagnosed during the screening period from 1999 to 2011 (n=4384) is examined in relation to individual screening participation or non-participation during preceding person-years of follow-up from the time of screening eligibility. To account for changes from never- to ever-screened status, breast cancer mortality is calculated for each year in relation to prior accumulated time of participation and non-participation in screening. Breast cancer mortality is also examined in regularly screened women (screened ⩾3 times and mean screening interval ⩽30 months), and irregularly screened women compared with never-screened women. Statistical analyses are by negative binomial and Poisson regression with adjustment for age and ethnic group (Māori, Pacific women) in a repeated-measures analysis. Relative risks for breast cancer mortality compared with never-screened women, are adjusted also for screening selection bias, to indicate the extent of breast cancer mortality reduction in a population offered and not offered mammography screening. Prognostic indicators at diagnosis of breast cancer are also compared between different screening participation groups, including by grade of tumour, extent of disease (spread), multiple tumour status and maximum tumour size using χ

resultsFor 1999-2011, after adjusting for age and ethnicity, breast cancer mortality in ever-screened women is estimated to be 62% (95% CI: 51-70) lower than in never-screened women. After further adjustment for screening selection bias, the mortality reduction in NZ is estimated to be 29% (95% CI: 20-38) at an average screening coverage of 64% for 2001-2011, and 34% (95% CI: 25-43) for recent screening coverage (2012-13, 71%). For irregularly screened women, the mortality reduction is estimated to be 31% (95% CI: 21-40), and 39% (95% CI: 22-52) in regularly screened women compared with never-screened women, after adjusting for age, ethnicity and screening selection bias (using recent 2012-2013 screening coverage of 71%). Ever-screened women diagnosed with breast cancer have more favourable prognostic indicators than never-screened women, with a higher proportion of localised cancer (63 compared with 46%), a higher proportion with a well-differentiated tumour (30 compared with 18%), lower risk of multiple tumours (RR=0.48) and smaller median tumour size (15 mm compared with 20 mm)-all differences are statistically significant (P<0.0001).

conclusionsThis is the first total population cohort study of an established nation-wide screening mammography programme using individual-level information on screening participation and mortality outcomes from breast cancer. The findings are in accord with other mammography screening service evaluations and with randomised trials of mammography screening.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNew ZealandPopulation SurveillancePrognosisRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID28183141
PMCPMC5355933
OpenAlexW2587342572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.