Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29506487›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2018

Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening.

Valérie D V Sankatsing, Jacques Fracheboud, Linda de Munck, Mireille J M Broeders, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, André L M Verbeek, Johannes D M Otten, Ruud M Pijnappel, Sabine Siesling and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Future of Breast Radiology.European journal of breast health · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. [Digital Mammography as a Screening Tool in Korea].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2021
    Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Valérie D V SankatsingDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands. v.sankatsing@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0052-2987
Jacques FracheboudDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands.
Linda de MunckDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), PO Box 19079, Utrecht, 3501, DB, The Netherlands.
Mireille J M BroedersDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500, HB, The Netherlands.
Nicolien T van RavesteynDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands.
Eveline A M HeijnsdijkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands.
André L M VerbeekDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500, HB, The Netherlands.
Johannes D M OttenDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500, HB, The Netherlands.
Ruud M PijnappelDutch Reference Center for Screening, PO Box 6873, Nijmegen, 6503, GJ, The Netherlands.
Sabine SieslingDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), PO Box 19079, Utrecht, 3501, DB, The Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands.
National Evaluation Team for Breast cancer screening, NETB
Erasmus MC · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice and PolicyU01CA199218 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2015 to 2019
$9.0M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199218
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBetween 2003 and 2010 digital mammography (DM) gradually replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (BCSP). Previous studies showed increases in detection rate (DR) after the transition to DM. However, national interval cancer rates (ICR) have not yet been reported.

methodsWe assessed programme sensitivity and specificity during the transition period to DM, analysing nationwide data on screen-detected and interval cancers. Data of 7.3 million screens in women aged 49-74, between 2004 and 2011, were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to obtain data on interval cancers. Age-adjusted DRs, ICRs and recall rates (RR) per 1000 screens and programme sensitivity and specificity were calculated by year, age and screening modality.

results41,662 screen-detected and 16,160 interval cancers were analysed. The DR significantly increased from 5.13 (95% confidence interval (CI):5.00-5.30) in 2004 to 6.34 (95% CI:6.15-6.47) in 2011, for both in situ (2004:0.73;2011:1.24) and invasive cancers (2004:4.42;2011:5.07), whereas the ICR remained stable (2004: 2.16 (95% CI2.06-2.25);2011: 2.13 (95% CI:2.04-2.22)). The RR changed significantly from 14.0 to 21.4. Programme sensitivity significantly increased, mainly between ages 49-59, from 70.0% (95% CI:68.9-71.2) to 74.4% (95% CI:73.5-75.4) whereas specificity slightly declined (2004:99.1% (95% CI:99.09-99.13);2011:98.5% (95% CI:98.45-98.50)). The overall DR was significantly higher for DM than for SFM (6.24;5.36) as was programme sensitivity (73.6%;70.1%), the ICR was similar (2.19;2.20) and specificity was significantly lower for DM (98.5%;98.9%).

conclusionsDuring the transition from SFM to DM, there was a significant rise in DR and a stable ICR, leading to increased programme sensitivity. Although the recall rate increased, programme specificity remained high compared to other countries. These findings indicate that the performance of DM in a nationwide screening programme is not inferior to, and may be even better, than that of SFM.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAgedBreast NeoplasmsEthnicityFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNetherlandsPrognosisRegistriesBreast cancer screeningDetection rateDigital mammographyInterval cancersProgramme sensitivityProgramme specificityScreen-film mammography

Identifiers

PMID29506487
PMCPMC5839006
OpenAlexW2795376318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.