Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30882843›Full record

Observational studyJAMA internal medicine2019

Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.

Janie M Lee, Robert F Arao, Brian L Sprague, Karla Kerlikowske, Constance D Lehman, Robert A Smith, Louise M Henderson, Garth H Rauscher, Diana L Miglioretti

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA internal medicine, 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 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Janie M LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Robert F AraoKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle.
Brian L SpragueOffice of Health Promotion Research, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Karla KerlikowskeGeneral Internal Medicine Section, Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs, San Francisco, California.
Constance D LehmanDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Robert A SmithCancer Control Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Garth H RauscherDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Diana L MigliorettiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle.
American Cancer Society · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Vermont · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI David Darr · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Whole-breast ultrasonography has been advocated to supplement screening mammography to improve outcomes in women with dense breasts. Objective: To determine the performance of screening mammography plus screening ultrasonography compared with screening mammography alone in community practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study. Two Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected data on screening mammography with vs without same-day breast ultrasonography from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2013. The dates of analysis were March 2014 to December 2018. A total of 6081 screening mammography plus same-day screening ultrasonography examinations in 3386 women were propensity score matched 1:5 to 30 062 screening mammograms without screening ultrasonography in 15 176 women from a sample of 113 293 mammograms. Exclusion criteria included a personal history of breast cancer and self-reported breast symptoms. Exposures: Screening mammography with vs without screening ultrasonography. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer detection rate and rates of interval cancer, false-positive biopsy recommendation, short-interval follow-up, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation were estimated and compared using log binomial regression. Results: Screening mammography with vs without ultrasonography examinations was performed more often in women with dense breasts (74.3% [n = 4317 of 5810] vs 35.9% [n = 39 928 of 111 306] in the overall sample), in women who were younger than 50 years (49.7% [n = 3022 of 6081] vs 31.7% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]), and in women with a family history of breast cancer (42.9% [n = 2595 of 6055] vs 15.0% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]). While 21.4% (n = 1154 of 5392) of screening ultrasonography examinations were performed in women with high or very high (≥2.50%) Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk scores, 53.6% (n = 2889 of 5392) had low or average (<1.67%) risk. Comparing mammography plus ultrasonography with mammography alone, the cancer detection rate was similar at 5.4 vs 5.5 per 1000 screens (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.68), as were interval cancer rates at 1.5 vs 1.9 per 1000 screens (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.33-1.37). The false-positive biopsy rates were significantly higher at 52.0 vs 22.2 per 1000 screens (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.93-2.58), as was short-interval follow-up at 3.9% vs 1.1% (RR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.60-3.70). The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was significantly lower at 9.5% vs 21.4% (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71). Conclusions and Relevance: In a relatively young population of women at low, intermediate, and high breast cancer risk, these results suggest that the benefits of supplemental ultrasonography screening may not outweigh associated harms.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOutcome Assessment, Health CarePhysical ExaminationRegistriesRisk AssessmentUltrasonography, Mammary

Identifiers

PMID30882843
PMCPMC6503561
OpenAlexW2922040900

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.