ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Annual mammography at age 45-49 years and biennial mammography at age 50-69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mammography screening and incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in Italy: an age-period-cohort analysis.International journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Personalized screening based on risk and density: prevalence data from the RIBBS study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of an Italian Population-Based Programme for Risk Assessment and Genetic Counselling and Testing for BRCA1/2-Related Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer after 10 Years of Operation: An Observational Study Protocol.Methods and protocols · 2024Article
- The risk-based breast screening (RIBBS) study protocol: a personalized screening model for young women.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Female breast cancer subtypes in the Romagna Unit of the Emilia-Romagna cancer registry, and estimated incident cases by subtypes and age in Italy in 2020.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Five-year annual incidence and clinico-molecular features of breast cancer after the last negative screening mammography at age 68-69.European radiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Breast cancer risk based on adapted IBIS prediction model in Slovenian women aged 40-49 years - could it be better?Radiology and oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the results of 5 years of annual mammography screening at age 45-49 with the results of 5 years of biennial screening at age 50-54 and 55-69.
methodsIn an Italian screening programme, data from 1,465,335 mammograms were analysed. Recall rates, invasive assessment rates, surgical biopsy (including excisional biopsy and definitive surgical treatment) rates, and cancer detection rates were calculated for the first screen (first) and, cumulatively, for the second and subsequent screens (second+).
resultsThe rate ratios between younger women and the two groups of older ones were (in parentheses, original figures per 1000 mammograms if not otherwise specified): recall rate: first 1.11 (103.6 vs. 93.5) and 1.11 (vs. 93.2), second+ 2.10 (208.9 vs. 99.7) and 2.77 (vs. 75.5); invasive assessment rate: first 0.94 (23.0 vs. 24.5) and 0.94 (vs. 24.6), second+ 1.63 (35.8 vs. 22.0) and 1.56 (vs. 23.0); surgical biopsy rate: first 0.68 (5.9 vs. 8.6) and 0.45 (vs. 13.2), second+ 1.35 (11.5 vs. 8.5) and 0.88 (vs. 13.0); total detection rate: first 0.63 (4.3 vs. 6.7) and 0.37 (vs. 11.7), second+ 1.30 (8.9 vs. 6.8) and 0.74 (vs. 12.0); total positive predictive value of surgical biopsy: first 0.93 (72.8% vs. 78.0%) and 0.82 (vs. 88.9%), second+ 0.96 (77.2% vs. 80.5%) and 0.83 (vs. 92.7%).
conclusionYounger women experienced two to threefold higher cumulative recall rates at second+ screens and limited differences in surgical biopsy rate. Albeit encouraging, these results must be completed with further investigation, especially on interval cancer incidence. KEY POINTS: • At repeated screens, cumulative recall rate was two- to threefold higher for younger women. • Differences in cumulative surgical referral and surgical biopsy rates were moderate. • Differences in positive predictive value of surgical biopsy were particularly small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30887204What 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.