Observational studyJAMA internal medicine2018
Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer.
Observational study in JAMA internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Pooled it
- ESR Essentials: post-treatment breast cancer surveillance from mammography to a more personalised approach-practice recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging.European radiology · 2026Review
- Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer management: current applications, limitations, and future directions.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Management Pathways for Workup of Abnormal Screening With Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- MR-contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) for follow-up of breast cancer patients: a "pros and cons" debate.European radiology · 2024Article
- Rapid differentiation of estrogen receptor status in patient biopsy breast cancer aspirates with an optical nanosensor.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Mammographic calcifications undergoing percutaneous biopsy: outcome in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer:AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2022Review
- Rate of breast biopsy referrals in female BRCA mutation carriers aged 50 years or more: a retrospective comparative study and matched analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022Article
- Breast Biopsy Recommendations and Breast Cancers Diagnosed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Radiology · 2022Article
- Downstream Mammary and Extramammary Cascade Services and Spending Following Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Mammography Among Commercially Insured Women.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Trends in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging use among US women, 2006 to 2016.Cancer · 2020Observational
- MRI-guided core needle biopsy of the breast: Radiology-pathology correlation and impact on clinical management.Annals of diagnostic pathology · 2020Article
- Article
- Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Screening MRI in Women at Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk: An Update of the Recent Literature.Journal of breast imagingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: There is little evidence on population-based harms and benefits of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). Objective: To evaluate biopsy rates and yield in the 90 days following screening (mammography vs magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography) among women with and without a PHBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study of 6 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Population-based sample of 812 164 women undergoing screening, 2003 through 2013. Exposures: A total of 2 048 994 digital mammography and/or breast MRI screening episodes (mammogram alone vs MRI with or without screening mammogram within 30 days). Main Outcomes and Measures: Biopsy intensity (surgical greater than core greater than fine-needle aspiration) and yield (invasive cancer greater than ductal carcinoma in situ greater than high-risk benign greater than benign) within 90 days of a screening episode. We computed age-adjusted rates of biopsy intensity (per 1000 screening episodes) and biopsy yield (per 1000 screening episodes with biopsies). Outcomes were stratified by PHBC and by BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk among women without PHBC. Results: We included 101 103 and 1 939 455 mammogram screening episodes in women with and without PHBC, respectively; MRI screening episodes included 3763 with PHBC and 4673 without PHBC. Age-adjusted core and surgical biopsy rates (per 1000 episodes) doubled (57.1; 95% CI, 50.3-65.1) following MRI compared with mammography (23.6; 95% CI, 22.4-24.8) in women with PHBC. Differences (per 1000 episodes) were even larger in women without PHBC: 84.7 (95% CI, 75.9-94.9) following MRI and 14.9 (95% CI, 14.7-15.0) following mammography episodes. Ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive biopsy yield (per 1000 episodes) was significantly higher following mammography compared with MRI episodes in women with PHBC (mammography, 404.6; 95% CI, 381.2-428.8; MRI, 267.6; 95% CI, 208.0-337.8) and nonsignificantly higher, but in the same direction, in women without PHBC (mammography, 279.3; 95% CI, 274.2-284.4; MRI, 214.6; 95% CI, 158.7-280.8). High-risk benign lesions were more commonly identified following MRI regardless of PHBC. Higher biopsy rates and lower cancer yield following MRI were not explained by increasing age or higher 5-year breast cancer risk. Conclusions and Relevance: Women with and without PHBC who undergo screening MRI experience higher biopsy rates coupled with significantly lower cancer yield findings following biopsy compared with screening mammography alone. Further work is needed to identify women who will benefit from screening MRI to ensure an acceptable benefit-to-harm ratio.
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.