ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020
Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Guideline
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance AmongFrontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Outcomes of Density-Targeted Supplemental Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening by Breast Cancer Risk: Long-Term Health and Economic Considerations.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Dual-modality breast cancer screening compared to MRI or mammography alone among female Hodgkin lymphoma survivors who received chest radiotherapy.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Diagnostic sensitivity of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for ductal carcinomaChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025Article
- Breast cancer in women after withdrawing from an increased-risk MRI screening program.European radiology · 2025Article
- Feasibility of tumor detection with a transmission-based microwave imaging system.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Exploring MRI and Mammography Lesion Features for Breast Cancer Detection in PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome.Cancers · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer MRI Screening of Patients After Multiplex Gene Panel Testing.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in enhancing breast cancer screening and diagnosis: A review of current advances.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Review
- Abbreviated Breast MRI as a Supplement to Mammography in Family Risk History of Breast Cancer within the Croatian National Breast Screening Program.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Relationship between Volpara Density Grade and Compressed Breast Thickness in Japanese Patients with Breast Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Largescale multicenter study of a serum metabolite biomarker panel for the diagnosis of breast cancer.iScience · 2024Article
- Patterns and Predictors of Referral for Screening Breast MRI: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2024Article
- MRI Surveillance and Breast Cancer Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations.JAMA oncology · 2024Article
- A publicly available deep learning model and dataset for segmentation of breast, fibroglandular tissue, and vessels in breast MRI.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- ER-positive and BRCA2-mutated breast cancer: a literature review.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Recommendations for the Screening of Breast Cancer of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Society of Mastology and Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Association.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria.
methodsThis prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided.
resultsAmong 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001).
conclusionsScreening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.
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.