Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35524202›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2022

Study protocol comparing the ethical, psychological and socio-economic impact of personalised breast cancer screening to that of standard screening in the "My Personal Breast Screening" (MyPeBS) randomised clinical trial.

Alexandra Roux, Rachel Cholerton, Jonathan Sicsic, Nora Moumjid, David P French, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Corinne Balleyguier, Michal Guindy, Fiona J Gilbert, Jean-Benoit Burrion and 6 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03672331 (International Randomized Study Comparing Personalized, Risk-Stratified to Standard Breast Cancer Screening In Women Aged 40-70), which is not on this map. Cited by 69 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
9.6field-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.

NCT03672331 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

International Randomized Study Comparing Personalized, Risk-Stratified to Standard Breast Cancer Screening In Women Aged 40-70

TypeinterventionalSponsorUNICANCERRan2019 to 2027Enrolled53,142ConditionsBreast ScreeningArmsMammogram, Ultrasound, MRI, Tomosynthesis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Risk-based breast cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors at 13 institutions in 6 countries.

Alexandra RouxIRIS (UMR8156 CNRS & U997 INSERM), Paris 13 University, Aubervilliers, France.
Rachel CholertonUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jonathan SicsicUniversité de Paris, LIRAES F-75006, Paris, France.
Nora MoumjidUniversité Lyon 1, P2S EA 4129, Centre Léon Bérard, F-69373, Lyon, France.
David P FrenchUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Paolo Giorgi RossiAUSL - IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Corinne BalleyguierInstitut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Michal GuindyAssuta Medical Centers, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Fiona J GilbertUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jean-Benoit BurrionInstitut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium.
Xavier CastellsIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
David RitchieEuropean Cancer Leagues, Brussels, Belgium.
Debbie KeatleyIndependent Cancer Patients' Voice, London, UK.
Camille BaronUnicancer, Paris, France.
Suzette DelalogeInstitut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Sandrine de MontgolfierIRIS (UMR8156 CNRS & U997 INSERM), Paris 13 University, Aubervilliers, France. sandrine.demontgolfier@u-pec.fr.
Institut Gustave Roussy · FRUniversity of Manchester · GBAssuta Medical Center · ILAzienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITInserm · FRInstitut Jules Bordet · BEMunicipal Institute for Medical Research · ESThe Patients Association · GBUniCancer Group · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FRUniversité Paris-Est Créteil · FRUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 755394
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe MyPeBS study is an ongoing randomised controlled trial testing whether a risk-stratified breast cancer screening strategy is non-inferior, or eventually superior, to standard age-based screening at reducing incidence of stage 2 or more cancers. This large European Commission-funded initiative aims to include 85,000 women aged 40 to 70 years, without prior breast cancer and not previously identified at high risk in six countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Israel, Spain, UK). A specific work package within MyPeBS examines psychological, socio-economic and ethical aspects of this new screening strategy. It compares women's reported data and outcomes in both trial arms on the following issues: general anxiety, cancer-related worry, understanding of breast cancer screening strategy and information-seeking behaviour, socio-demographic and economic characteristics, quality of life, risk perception, intention to change health-related behaviours, satisfaction with the trial.

methodsAt inclusion, 3-months, 1-year and 4-years, each woman participating in MyPeBS is asked to fill online questionnaires. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, subgroup comparisons and analysis of variations over time will be performed with appropriate tests to assess differences between arms. Multivariate regression models will allow modelling of different patient reported data and outcomes such as comprehension of the information provided, general anxiety or cancer worry, and information seeking behaviour. In addition, a qualitative study (48 semi-structured interviews conducted in France and in the UK with women randomised in the risk-stratified arm), will help further understand participants' acceptability and comprehension of the trial, and their experience of risk assessment. DISCUSSION: Beyond the scientific and medical objectives of this clinical study, it is critical to acknowledge the consequences of such a paradigm shift for women. Indeed, introducing a risk-based screening relying on individual biological differences also implies addressing non-biological differences (e.g. social status or health literacy) from an ethical perspective, to ensure equal access to healthcare. The results of the present study will facilitate making recommendations on implementation at the end of the trial to accompany any potential change in screening strategy.

trial registrationStudy sponsor: UNICANCER. My personalised breast screening (MyPeBS). CLINICALTRIALS: gov (2018) available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03672331 Contact: Cécile VISSAC SABATIER, PhD, + 33 (0)1 73 79 77 58 ext + 330,142,114,293, contact@mypebs.eu.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAdultAgedFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocioeconomic FactorsBreast cancer screeningComprehensionInequityPsychological impactRisk-stratificationSatisfactionUnderserved populations

Identifiers

PMID35524202
PMCPMC9073478
OpenAlexW4229055082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.