ArticleJournal of the Belgian Society of Radiology2022
In-depth Retrospective Review of Originally Negative Screening Mammograms from Women with Confirmed Breast Cancer.
Article in Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aim to contribute to the assessment of the screening performance in Flanders (Belgium) and to identify valuable mammograms for subsequent studies and training. Materials and Methods: Initially negative prior screening mammograms (sMx) of 210 women with confirmed breast cancer detected by the Flemish screening programme between 2011-2013 were reviewed by a highly experienced radiologist. The review of the prior sMx was performed in three steps: 1) only prior mammograms available; 2) with index sMx (=subsequent positive sMx) present; 3) with index sMx and clinical information present. Results: The radiological review yielded 94 (45%) mammograms 'without suspicious lesions', 77 (37%) 'with minimal signs in at least one breast', and 39 (19%) 'with clearly visible tumours'. In univariate analyses, the reclassification of prior sMx was significantly associated with the date of the prior sMx, the need for a third reader for arbitration, image quality and the detector system used (computed radiography versus direct readout digital radiography), and it was not associated with the interval between screening rounds, age at prior sMx, breast density, or tumour characteristics (<T2 versus ≥T2, in situ versus invasive). In multivariate analyses, the date of the prior sMx (p = 0.001), need for arbitration (p = 0.001) and image quality (p < 0.001) remained significantly associated with the reclassification. Conclusion: This retrospective review reclassified 19% of the sMx as clearly visible tumours. With this, the Flemish screening programme performs in accordance with similar studies. The sMx reviewed in this study, form a valuable set of mammograms for training and further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.