ArticleEClinicalMedicine2019
Final Results of the Prospective FH02 Mammographic Surveillance Study of Women Aged 35-39 at Increased Familial Risk of Breast Cancer.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The breast cancer risk assessment pathway in England: a systems analysis of current challenges and ways to improve.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Transforming care with community breast pain clinics: a validated innovative solution benefitting patients and the healthcare system.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Breast cancer incidence among women with a family history of breast cancer by relative's age at diagnosis.Cancer · 2022Article
- Long-Term Evaluation of Women Referred to a Breast Cancer Family History Clinic (Manchester UK 1987-2020).Cancers · 2020Article
- Screening and Selection: The Case of Mammograms.The American economic review · 2020Article
- Sporadic implementation of UK familial mammographic surveillance guidelines 15 years after original publication.British journal of cancer · 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
16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany women who are at increased risk of breast cancer due to a mother or sister diagnosed with breast cancer aged under 40 do not currently qualify for surveillance before 40 years of age. There are almost no available data to assess whether mammography screening aged 35-39 years would be effective in this group, in terms of detection of breast cancer at an early stage or cost effective.
methodsA cohort screening study (FH02) with annual mammography was devised for women aged 35-39 to assess the sensitivity and screening performance and potential survival of women with identified tumours.
findings2899 women were recruited from 12/2006-12/2015. These women underwent 12,086 annual screening mammograms and were followed for 13,365.8 years. A total of 55 breast cancers in 54 women occurred during the study period (one bilateral) with 50 cancers (49 women) (15 CIS) adherent to the screening. Eighty percent (28/35) of invasive cancers were ≤ 2 cm and 80% also lymph node negative. Invasive cancers diagnosed in FH02 were significantly smaller than the comparable (POSH-unscreened prospective) study group (45% (131/293) ≤ 2 cm in POSH vs 80% (28/35) in FH02 p < 0.0001), and were less likely to be lymph-node positive (54% (158/290, 3 unknown) in POSH vs 20% (7/35) in FH02: p = 0.0002. Projected and actual survival were also better than POSH. Overall radiation dose was not higher than in an older screened population at mean dose on study per standard sized breast of 1.5 mGy.
interpretationMammography screening aged 35-39 years detects breast cancer at an early stage and is likely to be as effective in reducing mortality as in women at increased breast cancer risk aged 40-49 years.
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.