Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32004483›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2020

Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization.

Diana S M Buist, Laura Ichikawa, Karen J Wernli, Christoph I Lee, Louise M Henderson, Karla Kerlikowske, Erin J A Bowles, Diana L Miglioretti, Jennifer Specht, Garth H Rauscher and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

13 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Diana S M BuistKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: diana.s.buist@kp.org.
Laura IchikawaKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Karen J WernliKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Erin J A BowlesKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Diana L MigliorettiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of California, Davis, Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Davis, California.
Jennifer SpechtDivision of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Garth H RauscherUniversity of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, Chicago, Illinois.
Brian L SpragueUniversity of Vermont College of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Burlington, Vermont.
Tracy OnegaThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Department of Biomedical Data Science, Department of Medicine, and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Janie M LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of Washington · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · 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 Medical Center · US

Funding

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
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
Group Health Cancer Research Program Research Specialist AwardR50CA211115 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BOWLES, ERIN JANELLE AIELLO · 2017 to 2021
$919k
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS R50 CA211115NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe sought to identify and characterize examinations in women with a personal history of breast cancer likely performed for asymptomatic surveillance.

methodsWe included surveillance mammograms (1997-2017) in asymptomatic women with a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed at age ≥18 years (1996-2016) from 103 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. We examined facility-level variability in examination indication. We modeled the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at the examination level of a (1) nonscreening indication and (2) surveillance interval ≤9 months using Poisson regression with fixed effects for facility, stage, diagnosis age, surgery, examination year, and time since diagnosis.

resultsAmong 244,855 surveillance mammograms, 69.5% were coded with a screening indication, 12.7% short-interval follow-up, and 15.3% as evaluation of a breast problem. Within a facility, the proportion of examinations with a screening indication ranged from 6% to 100% (median 86%, interquartile range 79%-92%). Facilities varied the most for examinations in the first 5 years after diagnosis, with 39.4% of surveillance mammograms having a nonscreening indication. Within a facility, breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy (RR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.60-1.68) and less time since diagnosis (1 year versus 5 years; RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.66-1.72; 3 years versus 5 years = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.18-1.23) were strongly associated with a nonscreening indication with similar results for ≤9-month surveillance interval. Screening indication and >9-month surveillance intervals were more common in more recent years.

conclusionVariability in surveillance indications across facilities in the United States supports including indications beyond screening in studies evaluating surveillance mammography effectiveness and demonstrates the need for standardization.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMastectomyReference StandardsRegistriesUnited StatesBreast cancer screeningbreast cancer surveillanceBreast Cancer Surveillance Consortiumbreast carcinomamammography indication

Identifiers

PMID32004483
PMCPMC7275918
OpenAlexW3003997925

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.