ArticleJAMA network open2020
Comparison of Mortality Among Participants of Women's Health Initiative Trials With Screening-Detected Breast Cancers vs Interval Breast Cancers.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2023Trial
- The Role of Tumor pH in Breast Cancer Imaging: Biology, Diagnostic Applications, and Emerging Techniques.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Risk Factors and Mortality Among Women With Interval Breast Cancer vs Screen-Detected Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a population-based breast cancer screening in North China.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Potential utility of risk stratification for multicancer screening with liquid biopsy tests.NPJ precision oncology · 2023Article
- Breast Cancer Mode of Detection in a Population-Based Cohort.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a short-term breast health measure as a supplement to screening mammography.Biomarker research · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Impact of Detection Mode in a Large Cohort of Women Taking Part in a Breast Screening Program.European journal of breast health · 2022Article
- Diet-Driven Inflammation and Insulinemia and Risk of Interval Breast Cancer.Nutrition and cancer · 2022Article
- Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpoints and Overdiagnosis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- Screen-detected breast cancer is associated with better prognosis and survival compared to self-detected/symptomatic cases in a Chilean cohort of female patients.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016.Radiology · 2021Observational
- Clinicopathological features of breast cancer without mammographic findings suggesting malignancy.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- "Screening isn't Your Ticket to Vacation": In-depth Interviews With Women in the United States Who Experienced an Interval Breast Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.