ArticleBritish journal of cancer2019
Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- False-positive recalls in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.European radiology · 2023Article
- Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening.Cancers · 2023Article
- The Potential of Adding Mammography to Handheld Ultrasound or Automated Breast Ultrasound to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies in BI-RADS Ultrasound Category 4a: A Multicenter Hospital-Based Study in China.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Organized Mammography Screening for Different Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes.Cancers · 2022Article
- Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives.Cancers · 2022Review
- Towards Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based Newborn Screening: A Technical Study to Prepare for the Challenges Ahead.International journal of neonatal screening · 2022Article
- Breast cancer risk stratification for mammographic screening: A nation-wide screening cohort of 24,431 women in Singapore.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Assessing breast cancer risk within the general screening population: developing a breast cancer risk model to identify higher risk women at mammographic screening.European radiology · 2020Article
- Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on the survival of patients with breast cancer diagnosed by screening.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed the long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer in women with a first or second false-positive screening result.
methodsJoint analysis had been performed using individual-level data from three population-based screening programs in Europe (Copenhagen in Denmark, Norway, and Spain). Overall, 75,513 screened women aged 50-69 years from Denmark (1991-2010), 556,640 from Norway (1996-2008), and 517,314 from Spain (1994-2010) were included. We used partly conditional Cox hazards models to assess the association between false-positive results and the risk of subsequent screen-detected and interval cancer.
resultsDuring follow-up, 1,149,467 women underwent 3,510,450 screening exams, and 10,623 screen-detected and 5700 interval cancers were diagnosed. Compared to women with negative tests, those with false-positive results had a two-fold risk of screen-detected (HR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.93-2.16) and interval cancer (HR = 2.18, 95% CI: 2.02-2.34). Women with a second false-positive result had over a four-fold risk of screen-detected and interval cancer (HR = 4.71, 95% CI: 3.81-5.83 and HR = 4.22, 95% CI: 3.27-5.46, respectively). Women remained at an elevated risk for 12 years after the false-positive result.
conclusionsWomen with prior false-positive results had an increased risk of screen-detected and interval cancer for over a decade. This information should be considered to design personalised screening strategies based on individual risk.
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.