Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36321193›Full record

Trial reportCancer2023

Effectiveness of triennial screening with clinical breast examination: 14-years follow-up outcomes of randomized clinical trial in Trivandrum, India.

Kunnambath Ramadas, Partha Basu, Beela S Mathew, Richard Muwonge, Muraleedharan Venugopal, Aparna M Prakasan, Rafi Malu, Eric Lucas, Paul Augustine, Rari P Mony and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kunnambath RamadasKarkinos Healthcare, Kerala Operations, Ernakulam, India.
Partha BasuEarly Detection, Prevention & Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0124-4050
Beela S MathewRegional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, India.
Richard MuwongeEarly Detection, Prevention & Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Muraleedharan VenugopalRegional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, India.
Aparna M PrakasanRegional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, India.
Rafi MaluRegional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, India.
Eric LucasEarly Detection, Prevention & Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Paul AugustineRegional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, India.
Rari P MonyRegional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, India.
Somanathan TharaRegional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, India.
Rengaswamy SankaranarayananKarkinos Healthcare, Kerala Operations, Ernakulam, India.
Regional Cancer Center, Thiruvananthapuram · INCentre international de recherche sur le cancer · FRGeneral Hospital Ernakulam · IN

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study presents the preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) initiated in January 2006 in India to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical breast examination (CBE) in reducing breast cancer mortality as compared to a no-screening control group reported significant downstaging in the intervention group. The present manuscript reports long-term follow-up outcomes.

methodsWomen 30-69 years old from 133 intervention clusters and 141 control clusters were invited to participate. Women in the intervention arm underwent three rounds of CBE every 3 years. CBE-positive women were reexamined by a physician, and triple-assessment was performed on those confirmed to have abnormalities. All participants were followed through home visits and linkage with population-based cancer registry.

resultsOf the 55,843 eligible women in the intervention arm, 95.7% had CBE at least once and 11.5% were CBE-positive. Breast cancers were diagnosed in 335 participants in the intervention group and 273 in the control group (N = 59,447). Age-standardized incidence rate of early cancer was 30.4 of 100,000 in the intervention and 21.9 of 100,000 in the control group, with a rate ratio (RR) of 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.8). The age-standardized breast cancer mortality rates were 11.3 and 11.1 per 100,000 in intervention and control arms, respectively (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5) after 15 years. Five-year breast cancer survival rates were 77.0% in the intervention and 71.2% in the control groups (overall p value = .043).

conclusionsTriennial CBE screening failed to demonstrate any mortality benefit despite achieving a shift toward earlier stage at detection and improved survival in the intervention arm. CBE is a valuable tool for diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women especially in areas where mammography and/or breast cancer screening programs are not widely available.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIndiaMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPhysical Examinationbreast cancerbreast cancer mortalityclinical breast examinationrandomized clinical trialscreening

Identifiers

PMID36321193
PMCPMC10091935
OpenAlexW4307859936

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.