Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30558679›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2018

Overdiagnosis in the population-based organized breast cancer screening program estimated by a non-homogeneous multi-state model: a cohort study using individual data with long-term follow-up.

Wendy Yi-Ying Wu, Sven Törnberg, Klara Miriam Elfström, Xijia Liu, Lennarth Nyström, Håkan Jonsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Quality of Informed Consent in Mammography Screening-The Polish Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Wendy Yi-Ying WuDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, 90187, Umeå, Sweden. wendy.wu@umu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-6169-5155
Sven TörnbergDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, 17177 Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
Klara Miriam ElfströmRegional Cancer Center Stockholm-Gotland, 11827, Stockholm, Sweden.
Xijia LiuDepartment of Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Umeå University, 90187, Umeå, Sweden.
Lennarth NyströmDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, 90187, Umeå, Sweden.
Håkan JonssonDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, 90187, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverdiagnosis, defined as the detection of a cancer that would not become clinically apparent in a woman's lifetime without screening, has become a growing concern. Similar underlying risk of breast cancer in the screened and control groups is a prerequisite for unbiased estimates of overdiagnosis, but a contemporary control group is usually not available in organized screening programs.

methodsWe estimated the frequency of overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to screening in women 50-69 years old by using individual screening data from the population-based organized screening program in Stockholm County 1989-2014. A hidden Markov model with four latent states and three observed states was constructed to estimate the natural progression of breast cancer and the test sensitivity. Piecewise transition rates were used to consider the time-varying transition rates. The expected number of detected non-progressive breast cancer cases was calculated.

resultsDuring the study period, 2,333,153 invitations were sent out; on average, the participation rate in the screening program was 72.7% and the average recall rate was 2.48%. In total, 14,648 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed; among the 8305 screen-detected cases, the expected number of non-progressive breast cancer cases was 35.9, which is equivalent to 0.43% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10%-2.2%) overdiagnosis. The corresponding estimates for the prevalent and subsequent rounds were 15.6 (0.87%, 95% CI 0.20%-4.3%) and 20.3 (0.31%, 95% CI 0.07%-1.6%), respectively. The likelihood ratio test showed that the non-homogeneous model fitted the data better than an age-homogeneous model (P <0.001).

conclusionsOur findings suggest that overdiagnosis in the organized biennial mammographic screening for women 50-69 in Stockholm County is a minor phenomenon. The frequency of overdiagnosis in the prevalent screening round was higher than that in subsequent rounds. The non-homogeneous model performed better than the simpler, traditional homogeneous model.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMedical OveruseMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrevalenceSwedenBreast cancerMammographyMulti-state modelOrganized screening programOverdiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID30558679
PMCPMC6296133

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.