Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32602908›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Comparison of Mortality Among Participants of Women's Health Initiative Trials With Screening-Detected Breast Cancers vs Interval Breast Cancers.

Veronica L Irvin, Zhenzhen Zhang, Michael S Simon, Rowan T Chlebowski, Shiuh-Wen Luoh, Aladdin H Shadyab, Jessica L Krok-Schoen, Fred K Tabung, Lihong Qi, Marcia L Stefanick and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Implementation of an Evidence-Based Intervention with Safety Net Clinics to Improve Mammography Appointment Adherence Among Underserved Women.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of a population-based breast cancer screening in North China.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpoints and Overdiagnosis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Veronica L IrvinCollege of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Zhenzhen ZhangDivision of Oncological Sciences, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Michael S SimonKarmanos Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
Rowan T ChlebowskiLundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California.
Shiuh-Wen LuohKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Aladdin H ShadyabDepartment of Family Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Jessica L Krok-SchoenSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Fred K TabungCollege of Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Lihong QiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis.
Marcia L StefanickDepartment of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research Center), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Pepper SchedinKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Sonali JindalKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Oregon Health & Science University · USThe Ohio State University · USOregon State University · USStanford University · USUCLA Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, San Diego · USWayne State University · US

Funding

Women's Health Initiative Cancer Survivor CohortUM1CA173642 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ANDERSON, GARNET L., CAAN, BETTE J · 2013 to 2018
$12.1M
Scholars in Women's Health Research Across the LifespanK12HD043488 · NICHD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI MYATT, LESLIE · 2002 to 2023
$10.4M
Life and Longevity After Cancer (LILAC): The Women's Health Initiative Cancer Survivor CohortU01CA173642 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ANDERSON, GARNET L., PASKETT, ELECTRA D. · 2019 to 2023
$7.5M
Pro-inflammatory and Hyper-insulinemic Dietary Patterns and Colorectal Cancer Risk: Role of the MetabolomeR00CA207736 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI TABUNG, FRED KINYUY · 2018 to 2020
$747k
NCI NIH HHS R00 CA207736NCI NIH HHS U01 CA173642NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA173642NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600001CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600002CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600003CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600004CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600018CNICHD NIH HHS K12 HD043488
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Interval breast cancers (IBCs) are cancers that emerge after a mammogram with negative results but before the patient's next scheduled screening. Interval breast cancer has a worse prognosis than cancers detected by screening; however, it is unknown whether the length of the interscreening period is associated with prognostic features and mortality. Objective: To compare the prognostic features and mortality rate of women with IBCs diagnosed within 1 year or between 1 and 2.5 years of a mammogram with negative results with the prognostic features and mortality rate of women with breast cancers detected by screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used mammography data, tumor characteristics, and patient demographic data from the Women's Health Initiative study, which recruited participants from 1993 to 1998 and followed up with participants for a median of 19 years. The present study sample for these analyses included women aged 50 to 79 years who participated in the Women's Health Initiative study and includes data collected through March 31, 2018. There were 5455 incidents of breast cancer; only 3019 women compliant with screening were retained in analyses. Statistical analysis was performed from October 25, 2018, to November 24, 2019. Breast cancers detected by screening and IBCs were defined based on mammogram history, date of last mammogram, type of visit, and results of examination. Interval breast cancers were subdivided into those occurring within 1 year or between 1 and 2.5 years after the last protocol-mandated mammogram with negative results. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this study was breast cancer-specific mortality for each case of breast cancer detected by screening and IBCs detected within 1 year or between 1 and 2.5 years from a mammogram with negative results. Secondary outcomes included prognostic and tumor characteristics for each group. Comparisons between groups were made using the t test, the χ2 test, and Fine-Gray multivariable cumulative incidence regression analyses. Results: Among the 3019 participants in this analysis, all were women with a mean (SD) age of 63.1 (6.8) years at enrollment and 68.5 (7.1) years at diagnosis. A total of 1050 cases of IBC were identified, with 324 (30.9%) diagnosed within 1 year from a mammogram with negative results and 726 (69.1%) diagnosed between 1 and 2.5 years after last mammogram with negative results. The remaining 1969 cases were breast cancers detected by screening. Interval breast cancers diagnosed within 1 year from a mammogram with negative results had significantly more lobular histologic characteristics (13.0% vs. 8.1%), a larger tumor size (1.97 cm vs 1.43 cm), a higher clinical stage (28.4% vs 17.3% regional and 3.7% vs 0.6% distant), and more lymph node involvement (27.1% vs 17.0%) than cancers detected by screening. Unadjusted breast cancer-specific mortality hazard ratios were significantly higher for IBCs diagnosed within 1 year from a mammogram with negative results compared with breast cancers detected by screening (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.39-2.65). Higher breast cancer-specific mortality remained statistically significant for IBCs diagnosed within 1 year after adjusting for trial group, molecular subtype, waist to hip ratio, histologic characteristics, and either tumor size (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.03-2.08) or lymph node involvement (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.03-2.01). However, significance was lost when tumor size and lymph node involvement were both included in the model (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.96-1.88). Interval breast cancers diagnosed between 1 and 2.5 years from a mammogram with negative results were not different from breast cancers detected by screening based on prognostic factors or mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: Women with IBCs diagnosed within 1 year of negative mammogram results overall were associated with worse survival than women with breast cancers detected by screening. These differences in survival may be due to a uniquely aggressive biology among IBC cases.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedWomen's Health

Identifiers

PMID32602908
PMCPMC7327543
OpenAlexW3038219863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.