Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32763059›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2022

Retrospective Review of a Mobile Mammography Screening Program in an Underserved Population within a Large Metropolitan Area.

David A Spak, Lewis Foxhall, Alyssa Rieber, Kenneth Hess, Mark Helvie, Gary J Whitman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bangkok declarations on cancer control in Asia.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Mobile Mammography Services and Underserved Women.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David A SpakDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030. Electronic address: daspak@mdanderson.org.
Lewis FoxhallDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Alyssa RieberDepartment of General Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Kenneth HessDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Mark HelvieDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Gary J WhitmanDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USMichigan Medicine · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesMobile mammography units provide preventive health care to patients facing barriers to annual screening. This study reviews the outcomes of a mobile mammography service during a recent 5-year period. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study analyzed the examinations by mobile mammography during a 5-year period (9327 examinations). The patients recalled, biopsies performed, and cancers detected were tallied. The race, age, breast cancer size, lymph node involvement, and metastases were recorded. The positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate metrics were calculated as outlined by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas.

resultsThe program identified cancer in 14 cases (cancer detection rate = 1.5 per 1000 examinations [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.5]) with 11 being invasive. The majority of these cancers were small and of low stage. Lymph node status was determined in 11 of the 14 cases (1 as N1mi, 5 as N0, 4 as N1,1 as N2a). Abnormalities led to 1686 examinations recalled (Recall Rate = 17.8%; PPV 1 = 0.8% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%]). One hundred and one were recommended for biopsy (PPV 2 = 13.9% [95% CI, 8.4%-21.9%]), and 98 pursued biopsy (PPV 3 = 14.3% [95% CI, 8.7%-22.6%]). Patient age ranged from 41 to 67 years with an average of 50.6 years.

conclusionThe program detected many cancers in an asymptomatic population facing barriers to breast cancer screening. These findings are underscored by the cancers detected at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and support the need for the development of similar programs.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsVulnerable PopulationsAdultAgedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesBreast cancerBreast cancer screeningMobile mammography

Identifiers

PMID32763059
PMCPMC7855048
OpenAlexW3047042880

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.