Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32862304›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2020

Breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis after implementation of population-based screening in Denmark.

Elsebeth Lynge, Anna-Belle Beau, My von Euler-Chelpin, George Napolitano, Sisse Njor, Anne Helene Olsen, Walter Schwartz, Ilse Vejborg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2020. 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Breast cancer detection accuracy of AI in an entire screening population: a retrospective, multicentre study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Elsebeth LyngeNykøbing Falster Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Ejegodvej 63, 4800, Nykøbing Falster, Denmark. elsebeth@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4785-5236
Anna-Belle BeauPharmacologie Médicale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paul-Sabatier III, CHU Toulouse, UMR INSERM 1027, 37 allées Jules Guesde, 31000, Toulouse, France.
My von Euler-ChelpinDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1041, Copenhagen K, Denmark.
George NapolitanoDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1041, Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Sisse NjorDepartment of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.
Anne Helene OlsenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1041, Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Walter SchwartzBreast Cancer Screening, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Ilse VejborgRadiology Department, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKAarhus University · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKOdense University Hospital · DKUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FR

Funding

Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond 9039-00053B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionService breast cancer screening is difficult to evaluate because there is no unscreened control group. Due to a natural experiment, where 20% of women were offered screening in two regions up to 17 years before other women, Denmark is in a unique position. We utilized this opportunity to assess outcome of service screening. MATERIALS AND

methodsScreening was offered in Copenhagen from 1991 and Funen from 1993 to women aged 50-69 years. We used difference-in-differences methodology with a study group offered screening; a historical control group; a regional control group; and a regional-historical control group, comparing breast cancer mortality and incidence, including ductal carcinoma in situ, between study and historical control group adjusted for changes in other regions, and calculating ratios of rate ratios (RRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data came from Central Population Register; mammography screening databases; Cause of Death Register; and Danish Cancer Register.

resultsFor breast cancer mortality, the study group accumulated 1,551,465 person-years and 911 deaths. Long-term breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen was 20% below expected in absence of screening; RRR 0.80 (95% CI 0.71-0.90), and in Funen 22% below; RRR 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.89). Combined, cumulative breast cancer incidence in women followed 8+ years post-screening was 2.3% above expected in absence of screening; RRR 1.023 (95% CI 0.97-1.08). DISCUSSION: Benefit-to-harm ratio of the two Danish screening programs was 2.6 saved breast cancer deaths per overdiagnosed case. Screening can affect only breast cancers diagnosed in screening age. Due to high breast cancer incidence after age 70, only one-third of breast cancer deaths after age 50 could potentially be affected by screening. Increasing upper age limit could be considered, but might affect benefit-to-harm ratio negatively.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAgedDenmarkEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMass ScreeningMedical OveruseMiddle AgedBreast cancerIncidenceMortalityScreening

Identifiers

PMID32862304
PMCPMC7655583
OpenAlexW3081596412

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.