Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33674619›Full record

ArticleNPJ breast cancer2021

The impact of mammographic screening on the subsequent breast cancer risk associated with biopsy-proven benign breast disease.

Francisco Beca, Hannah Oh, Laura C Collins, Rulla M Tamimi, Stuart J Schnitt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Francisco Beca *Department of Pathology, Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, CA, USA.
Hannah Oh *Interdisciplinary Program in Precision Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.
Laura C CollinsDepartment of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Rulla M TamimiChanning Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Stuart J SchnittDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. sschnitt@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3608-7828
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USKorea University · KRStanford University · US

Funding

VectorP30CA006516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI A. Heather Eliassen · 1985 to 2026
$330.6M
Life Course Cancer Epidemiology Cohort in WomenU01CA176726 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI ELIASSEN, A. HEATHER, WILLETT, WALTER C. · 2018 to 2025
$22.4M
Long Term Multidisciplinary Study of Cancer in Women: The Nurses Health StudyUM1CA186107 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI ELIASSEN, A. HEATHER, STAMPFER, MEIR · 2014 to 2023
$22.3M
Life Course Cancer Epidemiology Cohort in WomenUM1CA176726 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI WILLETT, WALTER C. · 2013 to 2017
$15.7M
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) 2019R1G1A1004227National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) 2019S1A3A2099973NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006516NCI NIH HHS U01 CA176726NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA176726NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA186107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data on the risk of breast cancer following a benign breast disease (BBD) diagnosis were derived predominantly from populations of women biopsied before the widespread use of mammographic screening and in whom these lesions were mostly incidental findings. Whether or not similar risk associations are seen when these lesions are detected in mammographically screened populations is unknown. To address this, we examined the variation in BBD and breast cancer risk associations by the calendar time of BBD diagnosis (pre- vs. post-mammography era [before vs. 1985 and after]) in a nested case-control study within the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and NHSII BBD subcohort (488 cases; 1908 controls). We performed logistic regression analysis, adjusting for matching factors and potential confounders, to estimate odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between BBD subtype (non-proliferative, proliferative without atypia, proliferative with atypical hyperplasia (AH)) and subsequent breast cancer risk. When compared with non-proliferative lesions, both proliferative lesions without atypia (PWA) and AHs were associated with similar levels of risk in the pre-mammographic (pre) and post-mammographic (post) time periods (PWA: OR [95% CI] = 1.73 [1.27, 2.36] pre vs. 1.12 [0.73, 1.74] post; AH: 4.41 [2.90, 6.70] pre vs. 3.69 [2.21, 6.15] post). The interaction by mammography era was not statistically significant (p-interaction = 0.47). These results suggest that the risk associations reported for BBD subtypes in the pre-mammography era remain valid for BBD detected after the widespread implementation of mammographic screening.

Identifiers

PMID33674619
PMCPMC7935945
OpenAlexW3135532737

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.