Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34283068›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Extending Age Ranges in Breast Cancer Screening in Four European Countries: Model Estimations of Harm-to-Benefit Ratios.

Nadine Zielonke, Amarens Geuzinge, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Sirpa Heinävaara, Carlo Senore, Katja Jarm, Harry J de Koning, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, On Behalf Of The Eu-Topia Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

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

9 authors.

Nadine ZielonkeDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Amarens GeuzingeDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eveline A M HeijnsdijkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sirpa HeinävaaraFinnish Cancer Registry, Mass Screening Registry, 00130 Helsinki, Finland.
Carlo SenoreEpidemiology and screening Unit-CPO, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, 10126 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-7477
Katja JarmEpidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nicolien T van RavesteynDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3531-466X
On Behalf Of The Eu-Topia Consortium

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 634753
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The main benefit of breast cancer (BC) screening is a reduction in mortality from BC. However, screening also causes harms such as overdiagnosis and false-positive results. The balance between benefits and harms varies by age. This study aims to assess how harm-to-benefit ratios of BC screening vary by age in the Netherlands, Finland, Italy and Slovenia. Using microsimulation models, we simulated biennial screening with 100% attendance at varying ages for cohorts of women followed over a lifetime. The number of overdiagnoses, false-positive diagnoses, BC deaths averted and life-years gained (LYG) were calculated per 1000 women. We compared four strategies (50-69, 45-69, 45-74 and 50-74) by calculating four harm-to-benefit ratios, respectively. Compared to the reference strategy 50-69, screening women at 45-74 or 50-74 years would be less beneficial in any of the four countries than screening women at 45-69, which would result in relatively fewer overdiagnoses per death averted or LYG. At the same time, false-positive results per death averted would increase substantially. Adapting the age range of BC screening is an option to improve harm-to-benefit ratios in all four countries. Prioritization of considered harms and benefits affects the interpretation of results.

Indexed as

breast cancer deaths avertedbreast cancer screeningfalse-positive resultsharm-to-benefit ratiosmicrosimulationoverdiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID34283068
PMCPMC8268112

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.