Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34222015›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Association of Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors With Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Potential for Additive Multi-Cancer Detection

Christine Hathaway, Peter Paetsch, Yali Li, Jincao Wu, Sam Asgarian, Alex Parker, Alley Welsh, Patricia Deverka, Ariella Cohain

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cancer Risk With Advanced Therapies in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: An Administrative Claims-Based Study.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christine HathawayThrive, An Exact Sciences Company, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Peter PaetschBlue Health Intelligence, Chicago, IL, United States.
Yali LiThrive, An Exact Sciences Company, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Jincao WuThrive, An Exact Sciences Company, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Sam AsgarianThrive, An Exact Sciences Company, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Alex ParkerThrive, An Exact Sciences Company, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Alley WelshThrive, An Exact Sciences Company, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Patricia DeverkaDeverka Consulting, LLC, Apex, NC, United States.
Ariella CohainThrive, An Exact Sciences Company, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Exact Sciences (United States) · USThrive · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate mammography uptake and subsequent breast cancer diagnoses, as well as the prospect of additive cancer detection

methodsPatients with incident breast cancer were identified from five years of longitudinal Blue Health Intelligence

resultsClaims for biennial screening mammograms and the time from screening to diagnosis were found to be predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis. When compared to women who received a screening mammogram proximal to their breast cancer diagnosis (0-4 months), women who were adherent to guidelines but had a longer time window from their screening mammogram to diagnosis (4-24 months) had a 87% increased odds of a later-stage (stages III or IV) breast cancer diagnosis (p-value <0.001), while women with no biennial screening mammogram had a 155% increased odds of a later-stage breast cancer diagnosis (p-value <0.001). This highlights the importance of screening in the earlier detection of breast cancer. Of incident breast cancer cases, 23% had no evidence of a screening mammogram in the two years before diagnosis. However, 49% of these women had a PCE within that time. Thus, an additional 11% of breast cancer cases could have been screened if a MCED test had been available during a PCE. Additionally, MCED tests have the potential to target up to 58% of the top 5 cancers that are the leading causes of cancer death currently without a USPSTF recommended screening modality (prostate, pancreatic, liver, lymphoma, and ovarian cancer).

conclusionThe study used claims data to demonstrate the association of cancer screening with cancer stage at diagnosis and demonstrates the unmet potential for a MCED screening test which could be ordered during a PCE.

Indexed as

breast cancercancer screeningclaims data analysisearlier detectionliquid biopsymammographymulti-cancer early detectionpreventive care

Identifiers

PMID34222015
PMCPMC8241562
OpenAlexW3167666501

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.