Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31377875›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2019

Improving the diagnostic accuracy of a stratified screening strategy by identifying the optimal risk cutoff.

John T Brinton, R Edward Hendrick, Brandy M Ringham, Mieke Kriege, Deborah H Glueck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

John T BrintonDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA. john.brinton@ucdenver.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3310-0422
R Edward HendrickDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA.
Brandy M RinghamLifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes (LEAD) Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA.
Mieke KriegeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Deborah H GlueckDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

Statistical Coordinating Center for the Breast Cancer Surveillance ConsortiumU01CA086076 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MIGLIORETTI, DIANA L · 2000 to 2011
$8.5M
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF MAMMOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONU01CA063731 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM · 1994 to 2011
$6.7M
VERMONT BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMU01CA070013 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT &ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI GELLER, BERTA M · 1995 to 2011
$6.7M
UTILITY AND OUTCOMES FROM MAMMOGRAPHY IN NORTH CAROLINAU01CA070040 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI YANKASKAS, BONNIE C · 1995 to 2011
$6.4M
San Francisco Mammography Registry-A Research SourceU01CA063740 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M · 1994 to 2011
$6.2M
STRATEGIC STUDIES IN BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCEU01CA086082 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI ONEGA, TRACY · 2000 to 2011
$4.9M
REFERRAL PATTERNS AND COST ANALYSIS OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY--FOLLOW-UP/BIOPSYU01CA063736 · NCI · COOPER INSTITUTE · PI CUTTER, GARY · 1994 to 2004
$2.7M
NEW MEXICO MAMMOGRAPHY PROJECTU01CA069976 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI ROSENBERG, ROBERT D · 1995 to 2005
$2.7M
Methods and Software for Lifecourse Epidemiology Data and Sample Size AnalysisR01GM121081 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI DABELEA, DANA, GLUECK, DEBORAH HELEN · 2016 to 2019
$2.6M
Efficacy of Oral Cancer Screening Adjunctive TechniquesRC2DE020779 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI LINGEN, MARK W. · 2009 to 2009
$770k
Power and Sample Size Methods for Mammography TrialsK07CA088811 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GLUECK, DEBORAH HELEN · 2002 to 2009
$734k
Bias correction optimizes the choice of screening test for early cancer detectionR03CA136048 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER/HSC DENVER · PI ALONZO, TODD A, GLUECK, DEBORAH HELEN · 2009 to 2010
$171k
NCI NIH HHS 1R03CA136048-01A1NCI NIH HHS 5K07CA088811NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS K07 CA088811NCI NIH HHS R03 CA136048NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063731NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063736NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063740NCI NIH HHS U01 CA069976NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070013NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070040NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086076NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086082NIDCR NIH HHS RC2 DE020779NIDCR NIH HHS RC2DE020779NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM121081
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe American Cancer Society (ACS) suggests using a stratified strategy for breast cancer screening. The strategy includes assessing risk of breast cancer, screening women at high risk with both MRI and mammography, and screening women at low risk with mammography alone. The ACS chose their cutoff for high risk using expert consensus.

methodsWe propose instead an analytic approach that maximizes the diagnostic accuracy (AUC/ROC) of a risk-based stratified screening strategy in a population. The inputs are the joint distribution of screening test scores, and the odds of disease, for the given risk score. Using the approach for breast cancer screening, we estimated the optimal risk cutoff for two different risk models: the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (BCSC) model and a hypothetical model with much better discriminatory accuracy. Data on mammography and MRI test score distributions were drawn from the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group.

resultsA risk model with an excellent discriminatory accuracy (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) yielded a reasonable cutoff where only about 20% of women had dual screening. However, the BCSC risk model (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) lacked the discriminatory accuracy to differentiate between women who needed dual screening, and women who needed only mammography.

conclusionOur research provides a general approach to optimize the diagnostic accuracy of a stratified screening strategy in a population, and to assess whether risk models are sufficiently accurate to guide stratified screening. For breast cancer, most risk models lack enough discriminatory accuracy to make stratified screening a reasonable recommendation.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerModels, TheoreticalAdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMass ScreeningRiskCancer screeningRisk assessmentROC analysisStratified screening

Identifiers

PMID31377875
PMCPMC6736710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.