Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28528449›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2017

The Canadian National Breast Screening Studies are compromised and their results are unreliable. They should not factor into decisions about breast cancer screening.

Daniel B Kopans

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Daniel B KopansBreast Imaging Division, Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. dkopans@partners.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0741-6829

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Canadian National Breast Screening Studies were compromised by an unblinded allocation process and poor quality mammography. Contrary to the requirement that allocation in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) be blinded to avoid any possible intentional or unintentional subversion of a random allocation, all women in the CNBSS trials underwent a clinical breast examination prior to assignment to the study arm or the usual care arm. Women with abnormal clinical breast examinations were identified, and this information was available to the coordinators who then assigned the women on open lists. It was, therefore, possible to assign women to whichever arm the coordinator chose. Although subversion was likely unintended, a significant number of women with four or more positive axillary lymph nodes were assigned to the screening arm of CNBSS1. This explains why there were more breast cancer deaths among the screened women in the first ten years of the trial and why the 5 year survival of the control women was better than 90% when the background survival in Canada at the time was only 75%. The trials were further compromised by the poor quality of the mammography which was confirmed by a review conducted by the trials' organizers. These fundamental problems compromise the CNBSS and make their results, which are major outliers in the RCT's of breast cancer screening, unreliable. Consequently, they should not be used to establish guidelines for breast cancer screening.

Indexed as

MammographyResearch DesignAdultBreast NeoplasmsCanadaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSelection BiasTime FactorsBreastBreast cancerMammographyRandomized trialsScreening

Identifiers

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.