Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29621362›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2018

Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.

Adam R Brentnall, Jack Cuzick, Diana S M Buist, Erin J Aiello Bowles

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 204 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. 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 · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Adam R BrentnallCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
Jack CuzickCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
Diana S M BuistKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Erin J Aiello BowlesKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Group Health Cancer Research Program Research Specialist AwardR50CA211115 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BOWLES, ERIN JANELLE AIELLO · 2017 to 2021
$919k
Cancer Research UK 16891NCI NIH HHS R50 CA211115
6 · The paper itself

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

Breast DensityAdultAgedBreastBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID29621362
PMCPMC6143016
OpenAlexW2796266003

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.