Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35027432›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2022

Estimating Distributions of Breast Cancer Onset and Growth in a Swedish Mammography Screening Cohort.

Rickard Strandberg, Kamila Czene, Mikael Eriksson, Per Hall, Keith Humphreys

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Rickard StrandbergDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Kamila CzeneDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Mikael ErikssonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8135-4270
Per HallDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5640-9126
Keith HumphreysDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, biologically motivated continuous tumor growth models have been introduced for breast cancer screening data. These provide a novel framework from which mammography screening effectiveness can be studied.

methodsWe use a newly developed natural history model, which is unique in that it includes a carcinogenesis model for tumor onset, to analyze data from a large Swedish mammography cohort consisting of 65,536 participants, followed for periods of up to 6.5 years. Using patient data on age at diagnosis, tumor size, and mode of detection, as well as screening histories, we estimate distributions of patient's age at onset, (inverse) tumor growth rates, symptomatic detection rates, and screening sensitivities. We also allow the growth rate distribution to depend on the age at onset.

resultsWe estimate that by the age of 75, 13.4% of women have experienced onset. On the basis of a model that accounts for the role of mammographic density in screening sensitivity, we estimated median tumor doubling times of 167 days for tumors with onset occurring at age 40, and 207 days for tumors with onset occurring at age 60.

conclusionsWith breast cancer natural history models and population screening data, we can estimate latent processes of tumor onset, tumor growth, and mammography screening sensitivity. We can also study the relationship between the age at onset and tumor growth rates. IMPACT: Quantifying the underlying processes of breast cancer progression is important in the era of individualized screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerBreast DensityFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSweden

Identifiers

PMID35027432
PMCPMC9306270
OpenAlexW4205368176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.