ArticleBritish journal of cancer2017
Mammography service screening and breast cancer mortality in New Zealand: a National Cohort Study 1999-2011.
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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening for breast cancer: a systematic review update to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance and Concordance of a BI-RADS-Output AI System in Mammography: A Retrospective Study of Radiologists-AI Collaboration.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of High-Risk Breast Cancer Screenings with Concurrent Versus Staggered Breast MRI and Mammogram Schedules.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A randomized controlled trial to evaluate an adapted community health worker-delivered breast and cervical cancer screening education and navigation intervention for underserved Latina adults.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Incidence trends of ductal carcinoma in situ in New Zealand women between 1999 and 2022.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- The potential of a population register for addressing health inequities: an observational study using data linkage to improve breast cancer screening enrolment and participation in Indigenous Māori women in Aotearoa New Zealand.BMC health services research · 2025Observational
- Self-Selection Bias in Randomized and Observational Studies on Screening Mammography: A Quantitative Assessment.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening Practices Reported Via an Online Survey.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Advances in breast cancer screening modalities and status of global screening programs.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2022Review
- Breast cancer screening adherence rates and barriers of implementation in ethnic, cultural and religious minorities: A systematic review.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Beliefs, fear and awareness of women about breast cancer: Effects on mammography screening practices.Nursing open · 2021Article
- Monitoring and evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes: selecting candidate performance indicators.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Effects of a WhatsApp-Delivered Education Intervention to Enhance Breast Cancer Knowledge in Women: Mixed-Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Review
- A Validation of Methods for the Evaluation of Observational Studies of Screening Mammography: An Exploratory Analysis Based on Simulating Screening Cohorts.Clinical epidemiology · 2020Article
- Factors associated with readmissions in women participating in screening programs and treated for breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study.BMC health services research · 2019Observational
- A new approach for detecting abnormalities in mammograms using a computer-aided windowing system based on Otsu's method.Radiological physics and technology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.