Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30715589›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme.

R G Blanks, R M Given-Wilson, S L Cohen, J Patnick, R J Alison, M G Wallis

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

R G BlanksCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. roger.blanks@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4748-3444
R M Given-WilsonDepartment of Radiology, St Georges University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, UK.
S L CohenPublic Health England, London, UK.
J PatnickCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
R J AlisonCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
M G WallisCambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.
University of Oxford · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBPublic Health England · GBSt George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16491
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop methods to model the relationship between cancer detection and recall rates to inform professional standards.

methodsAnnual screening programme information for each of the 80 English NHSBSP units (totalling 11.3 million screening tests) for the seven screening years from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2016 and some Dutch screening programme information were used to produce linear and non-linear models. The non-linear models estimated the modelled maximum values (MMV) for cancers detected at different grades and estimated how rapidly the MMV was reached (the modelled 'slope' (MS)). Main outcomes include the detection rate for combined invasive/micro-invasive and high-grade DCIS (IHG) detection rate and the low/intermediate grade DCIS (LIG) detection rate.

resultsAt prevalent screens for IHG cancers, 99% of the MMV was reached at a recall rate of 7.0%. The LIG detection rate had no discernible plateau, increasing linearly at a rate of 0.12 per 1000 for every 1% increase in recall rate. At incident screens, 99% of the MMV for IHG cancer detection was 4.0%. LIG DCIS increased linearly at a rate of 0.18 per 1000 per 1% increase in recall rate.

conclusionsOur models demonstrate the diminishing returns associated with increasing recall rates. The screening programme in England could use the models to set recall rate ranges, and other countries could explore similar methodology. KEY POINTS: • Question: How can we determine optimum recall rates in breast cancer screening? • Findings: In this large observational study, we show that increases in recall rates above defined levels are almost exclusively associated with false positive recalls and a very small increase in low/intermediate grade DCIS. • Meaning: High recall rates are not associated with increases in detection of life-threatening cancers. The models developed in this paper can be used to help set recall rate ranges that maximise benefit and minimise harm.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningState MedicineBreast neoplasmsMammographyMass screeningRecall rate

Identifiers

PMID30715589
OpenAlexW2912946922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.