Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30611228›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2019

Screening mammography for second breast cancers in women with history of early-stage breast cancer: factors and causes associated with non-detection.

Yoo Kyung Yeom, Eun Young Chae, Hak Hee Kim, Joo Hee Cha, Hee Jung Shin, Woo Jung Choi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Contrast-Enhanced Chest Computed Tomography forDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Imaging for local recurrence of breast cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Thermoacoustic imaging and its application in breast cancer detection and therapy].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2019
    Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yoo Kyung YeomDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Eun Young ChaeDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. chaeey@amc.seoul.kr.ORCID 0000-0002-3478-6721
Hak Hee KimDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Joo Hee ChaDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Hee Jung ShinDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Woo Jung ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Ulsan College · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of our study was to identify the factors and causes associated with non-detection for second breast cancers on screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.

methodsBetween January 2000 and December 2008, 7976 women with early-stage breast cancer underwent breast surgery in our institution. The inclusion criteria of our study were patients who had: (a) subsequent in-breast recurrence, (b) surveillance mammography within 1 year before recurrence. Retrospective analysis of mammography was performed. Non-detection was defined as second breast cancers that were not visible on screening mammography. Imaging features, demographics, primary breast cancer (PBC) characteristics, and clinical features were evaluated to determine its association with non-detection. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were also performed to identify the factors related to non-detection.

resultsWe identified 188 patients that met the criteria. Among them, 39% of patients showed non-detection (n = 74). Of the 74 patients with non-detection, 53 (72%) were classified as having no detectable mammographic abnormality (i.e., true negative) due to overlapping dense breast tissue (n = 32), obscured by postoperative scar (n = 12) or difficult anatomic location / poor positioning (n = 9). The remaining 21 patients were categorized as having subtle findings (n = 11) or missed cancer (n = 10). Non-detection for second breast cancers were significantly associated with mammographic breast density (p = 0.001, OR = 2.959) and detectability of PBC on mammography (p = 0.011, OR = 3.013).

conclusionNon-detection of second breast cancer in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer were associated with mammographic dense breast and lower detectability of PBC on mammography.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge of OnsetBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFalse Negative ReactionsFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Second PrimaryNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsBreast cancerMammographyScreeningSecond breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID30611228
PMCPMC6321714
OpenAlexW2917559827

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.