Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28289944›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2017

Screen-detected versus interval cancers: Effect of imaging modality and breast density in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

Lore Timmermans, Luc Bleyen, Klaus Bacher, Koen Van Herck, Kim Lemmens, Chantal Van Ongeval, Andre Van Steen, Patrick Martens, Isabel De Brabander, Mathieu Goossens and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Evaluation of a population-based breast cancer screening in North China.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Long-term excess risk of breast cancer after a single breast density measurement.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2019
    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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lore TimmermansDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, QCC-Gent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Lore.Timmermans@UGent.be.
Luc BleyenCentrum voor Preventie en Vroegtijdige Opsporing van Kanker, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Klaus BacherDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, QCC-Gent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Koen Van HerckCentrum voor Preventie en Vroegtijdige Opsporing van Kanker, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Kim LemmensDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Chantal Van OngevalDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Andre Van SteenDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Patrick MartensCentrum voor Kankeropsporing, Bruges, Belgium.
Isabel De BrabanderBelgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium.
Mathieu GoossensDienst Kankerpreventie, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Hubert ThierensDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, QCC-Gent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BEKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate if direct radiography (DR) performs better than screen-film mammography (SF) and computed radiography (CR) in dense breasts in a decentralized organised Breast Cancer Screening Programme. To this end, screen-detected versus interval cancers were studied in different BI-RADS density classes for these imaging modalities.

methodsThe study cohort consisted of 351,532 women who participated in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme in 2009 and 2010. Information on screen-detected and interval cancers, breast density scores of radiologist second readers, and imaging modality was obtained by linkage of the databases of the Centre of Cancer Detection and the Belgian Cancer Registry.

resultsOverall, 67% of occurring breast cancers are screen detected and 33% are interval cancers, with DR performing better than SF and CR. The interval cancer rate increases gradually with breast density, regardless of modality. In the high-density class, the interval cancer rate exceeds the cancer detection rate for SF and CR, but not for DR.

conclusionsDR is superior to SF and CR with respect to cancer detection rates for high-density breasts. To reduce the high interval cancer rate in dense breasts, use of an additional imaging technique in screening can be taken into consideration. KEY POINTS: • Interval cancer rate increases gradually with breast density, regardless of modality. • Cancer detection rate in high-density breasts is superior in DR. • IC rate exceeds CDR for SF and CR in high-density breasts. • DR performs better in high-density breasts for third readings and false-positives.

Indexed as

Breast DensityAgedBelgiumBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFinlandHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRegistriesRetrospective StudiesBreast cancer screeningBreast densityDigital mammographyInterval cancersScreen-film mammography

Identifiers

PMID28289944
OpenAlexW2596134250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.