ArticleJAMA oncology2018
Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
103 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 204 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence for risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a systematic review of evidence, clinical integration, and ethical implications in risk assessment tools.La Radiologia medica · 2026Pooled it
- Development and performance of female breast cancer incidence risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance for people at high risk in Australia: summary of recommendations.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Guideline
- Advanced applications in chronic disease monitoring using IoT mobile sensing device data, machine learning algorithms and frame theory: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Studies of parenchymal texture added to mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of the methods used in the literature.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2022Pooled it
- An Assessment of the Predictive Performance of Current Machine Learning-Based Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models: Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Pooled it
- Implementing a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast tissue density and its correlation with pathologic response: a retrospective artificial intelligence-enhanced radiological study.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Blood DNA methylation and breast cancer risk: a prospective nested case-control study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Generalizability of an AI-based mammogram risk score (MRS) for breast cancer among diverse populations of women.Science advances · 2026Article
- Underserved Latinas' Perceptions and Implications Around Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Genomic risk model to implement precision prostate cancer screening in clinical care: the ProGRESS study.Nature cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of menopause and age on breast density and background parenchymal enhancement in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Predicting short- to long-term breast cancer risk from longitudinal mammographic screening history.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- Evaluating mammographic density's contribution to improve a breast cancer risk model with questionnaire-based and polygenic factors.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- Incorporating Continuous Mammographic Density Into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Current insights into breast and ovarian cancer risk: a contemporary review.Minerva surgery · 2025Review
- Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography-based Radiomics for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: Case-Control Study.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Association of Polygenic-Based Breast Cancer Risk Prediction With Patient Management.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Review
43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Accurate long-term breast cancer risk assessment for women attending routine screening could help reduce the disease burden and intervention-associated harms by personalizing screening recommendations and preventive interventions. Objective: To report the accuracy of risk assessment for breast cancer during a period of 19 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of the Kaiser Permanente Washington breast imaging registry included women without previous breast cancer, aged 40 to 73 years, who attended screening from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2013. Follow-up was completed on December 31, 2014, and data were analyzed from March 2, 2016, through November 13, 2017. Exposures: Risk factors from a questionnaire and breast density from the Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System at entry; primary risk was assessed using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of invasive breast cancer was estimated with and without breast density. Follow-up began 6 months after the entry mammogram and extended to the earliest diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, censoring at 75 years of age, 2014, diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ, death, or health plan disenrollment. Observed divided by expected (O/E) numbers of cancer cases were compared using exact Poisson 95% CIs. Hazard ratios for the top decile of 10-year risk relative to the middle 80% of the study population were estimated. Constancy of relative risk calibration during follow-up was tested using a time-dependent proportional hazards effect. Results: In this cohort study of 132 139 women (median age at entry, 50 years; interquartile range, 44-58 years), 2699 invasive breast cancers were subsequently diagnosed after a median 5.2 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 2.4-11.1 years; maximum follow-up, 19 years; annual incidence rate [IR] per 1000 women, 2.9). Observed number of cancer diagnoses was close to the expected number (O/E for the Tyrer-Cuzick model, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.98-1.06]; O/E for the Tyrer-Cuzick model with density, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.94-1.02]). The Tyrer-Cuzick model estimated 2554 women (1.9%) to be at high risk (10-year risk of ≥8%), of whom 147 subsequently developed invasive breast cancer (O/E, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93; IR per 1000 women, 8.7). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with density estimated more women to be at high risk (4645 [3.5%]; 273 cancers [10.1%]; O/E, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; IR per 1000 women, 9.2). The hazard ratio for the highest risk decile compared with the middle 80% was 2.22 (95% CI, 2.02-2.45) for the Tyrer-Cuzick model and 2.55 (95% CI, 2.33-2.80) for the Tyrer-Cuzick model with density. Little evidence was found for a decrease in relative risk calibration throughout follow-up for the Tyrer-Cuzick model (age-adjusted slope, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.018 to 0.012) or the Tyrer-Cuzick model with density (age-adjusted slope, -0.008; 95% CI, -0.020 to 0.004). Conclusions and Relevance: Breast cancer risk assessment combining classic risk factors with mammographic density may provide useful data for 10 years or more and could be used to guide long-term, systematic, risk-adapted screening and prevention strategies.
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.