Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35699706›Full record

ArticleJAMA2022

Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer.

Karla Kerlikowske, Yu-Ru Su, Brian L Sprague, Anna N A Tosteson, Diana S M Buist, Tracy Onega, Louise M Henderson, Nila Alsheik, Michael C S Bissell, Ellen S O'Meara and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Karla KerlikowskeDepartments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco.
Yu-Ru SuKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.
Brian L SpragueDepartments of Surgery and Radiology, University of Vermont, 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.
Diana S M BuistKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.
Tracy OnegaDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Nila AlsheikSchool of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Michael C S BissellDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis.
Ellen S O'MearaKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Diana L MigliorettiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of California, Davis · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USHuntsman Cancer Institute · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Vermont · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

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
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk. Objective: To evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries. Exposures: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting. Results: Among 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32). Conclusions and Relevance: Screening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyMass ScreeningAdultAgedBreast DensityCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessRiskTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID35699706
PMCPMC9198754
OpenAlexW4282841042

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.