ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2021
Screening outcomes by risk factor and age: evidence from BreastScreen WA for discussions of risk-stratified population screening.
Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical guidelines for the management of mammographic density: a systematic review of breast screening guidelines worldwide.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Pooled it
- Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Psychosocial outcomes and health service use after notifying women participating in population breast screening when they have dense breasts: a BreastScreen Queensland randomised controlled trial.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Trial
- Australian Women's Intentions and Psychological Outcomes Related to Breast Density Notification and Information: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Psychosocial Impact of Breast Density Notification Through Breast Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Risk Models to Predict Screen-Detected and Interval Breast Cancers in Population Mammography Screening Participants.Cancers · 2025Article
- The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Reflections from Women with an Interval Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Qualitative Analysis of Open Disclosure in the BreastScreen Western Australia Program.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Australian Women's Responses to Breast Density Information: A Content Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- A systematic assessment of online international breast density information.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate rates of screen-detected and interval breast cancers, stratified by risk factor, to inform discussions of risk-stratified population screening.
designRetrospective population-based cohort study; analysis of routinely collected BreastScreen WA program clinical and administrative data. SETTING,
participantsAll BreastScreen WA mammography screening episodes for women aged 40 years or more during 1 July 2007 - 30 June 2017.
main outcome measuresCancer detection rate (CDR) and interval cancer rate (ICR), by risk factor.
resultsA total of 323 082 women were screened in 1 026 137 screening episodes (mean age, 58.5 years; SD, 8.6 years). The overall CDR was 68 (95% CI, 67-70) cancers per 10 000 screens, and the overall ICR was 9.7 (95% CI, 9.2-10.1) cancers per 10 000 women-years. Interactions between the effects on CDR of age group and five risk factors were statistically significant: personal history of breast cancer (P = 0.039), family history of breast cancer (P = 0.005), risk-relevant benign conditions (P = 0.012), hormone-replacement therapy (P = 0.002), and self-reported symptoms (P < 0.001). The influence of these risk factors (except personal history) increased with age. For ICR, only the interaction between age and hormone-replacement therapy was significant (P < 0.001), although weak interactions between age and family history of breast cancer or having dense breasts were noted (each P = 0.07). The influence of family history on ICR was significant only for women aged 40-49 years.
conclusionsScreening CDR and (for some risk factors) ICR were higher for women in some age groups with personal histories of breast cancer or risk-relevant benign breast conditions or first degree family history of breast cancer, women with dense breasts or self-reported breast-related symptoms, and women using hormone-replacement therapy. Our findings could inform the evaluation of risk-based screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.