Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35175286›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2022

Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for Women With ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 Pathogenic Variants: A Comparative Modeling Analysis.

Kathryn P Lowry, H Amarens Geuzinge, Natasha K Stout, Oguzhan Alagoz, John Hampton, Karla Kerlikowske, Harry J de Koning, Diana L Miglioretti, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, Clyde Schechter and 14 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. GermlineGenes · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Diagnostic sensitivity of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for ductal carcinomaChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Association of gene variant type and location with breast cancer risk in the general population.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors at 18 institutions in 3 countries.

Kathryn P LowryDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle.
H Amarens GeuzingeDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Natasha K StoutDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Oguzhan AlagozDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
John HamptonCarbone Cancer Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Diana L MigliorettiDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis.
Nicolien T van RavesteynDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Clyde SchechterDepartment of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.
Brian L SpragueDepartment of Surgery, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington.
Anna N A TostesonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Amy Trentham-DietzCarbone Cancer Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Donald WeaverDepartment of Pathology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington.
Martin J YaffeDepartment of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jennifer M YehDepartment of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Fergus J CouchDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York.
Chunling HuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York.
Peter KraftDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eric C PolleyDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Jeanne S MandelblattLombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Allison W KurianDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Mark E RobsonDepartment of Breast Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Breast Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET), in collaboration with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium
Breast Cancer Research Foundation · USErasmus MC · NLHarvard University · USMayo Clinic · USUniversity of Vermont · USUniversity of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USBoston Children's Hospital · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USGeorgetown University · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USSeattle Cancer Care Alliance · USStanford University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Women's Cancer ProgramP30CA015083 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI AKHILESH PANDEY · 1985 to 2026
$151.3M
Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Fred W Kolling IV · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KARLA M KERLIKOWSKE · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
A Follow-up Study for Causes of Cancer in Black WomenU01CA164974 · NCI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Kimberly A. Bertrand, Yvette C Cozier · 2017 to 2026
$24.0M
Environmental and Genetic Risk Factors For Breast Cancer: The Sister StudyZIAES044005 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SANDLER, DALE P · 2009 to 2025
$22.7M
Comparative Modeling of Precision Breast Cancer Control Across the Translational Continuum - SupplementU01CA253911 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ALAGOZ, OGUZHAN, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2020 to 2025
$10.6M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015083NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS U01 CA164974NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253911
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceScreening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. However, there are few data to guide screening regimens for these women.

objectiveTo estimate the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening strategies using mammography and MRI at various start ages for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis comparative modeling analysis used 2 established breast cancer microsimulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate different screening strategies. Age-specific breast cancer risks were estimated using aggregated data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium for 32 247 cases and 32 544 controls in 12 population-based studies. Data on screening performance for mammography and MRI were estimated from published literature. The models simulated US women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants born in 1985.

interventionsScreening strategies with combinations of annual mammography alone and with MRI starting at age 25, 30, 35, or 40 years until age 74 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated lifetime breast cancer mortality reduction, life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted, total screening examinations, false-positive screenings, and benign biopsies per 1000 women screened. Results are reported as model mean values and ranges.

resultsThe mean model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk was 20.9% (18.1%-23.7%) for women with ATM pathogenic variants, 27.6% (23.4%-31.7%) for women with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, and 39.5% (35.6%-43.3%) for women with PALB2 pathogenic variants. Across pathogenic variants, annual mammography alone from 40 to 74 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 36.4% (34.6%-38.2%) to 38.5% (37.8%-39.2%) compared with no screening. Screening with annual MRI starting at 35 years followed by annual mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 54.4% (54.2%-54.7%) to 57.6% (57.2%-58.0%), with 4661 (4635-4688) to 5001 (4979-5023) false-positive screenings and 1280 (1272-1287) to 1368 (1362-1374) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Annual MRI starting at 30 years followed by mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce mortality by 55.4% (55.3%-55.4%) to 59.5% (58.5%-60.4%), with 5075 (5057-5093) to 5415 (5393-5437) false-positive screenings and 1439 (1429-1449) to 1528 (1517-1538) benign biopsies per 1000 women. When starting MRI at 30 years, initiating annual mammography starting at 30 vs 40 years did not meaningfully reduce mean mortality rates (0.1% [0.1%-0.2%] to 0.3% [0.2%-0.3%]) but was estimated to add 649 (602-695) to 650 (603-696) false-positive screenings and 58 (41-76) to 59 (41-76) benign biopsies per 1000 women. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This analysis suggests that annual MRI screening starting at 30 to 35 years followed by annual MRI and mammography at 40 years may reduce breast cancer mortality by more than 50% for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. In the setting of MRI screening, mammography prior to 40 years may offer little additional benefit.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyAdultAgedAtaxia Telangiectasia Mutated ProteinsBreastCheckpoint Kinase 2Early Detection of CancerFanconi Anemia Complementation Group N ProteinFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedAtaxia Telangiectasia Mutated ProteinsATM protein, humanCheckpoint Kinase 2CHEK2 protein, humanFanconi Anemia Complementation Group N ProteinPALB2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID35175286
PMCPMC8855312
OpenAlexW4213378853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.