Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37169601›Full record

ReviewBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2023

The dilemma of recalling well-circumscribed masses in a screening population: A narrative literature review and exploration of Dutch screening practice.

Tanya D Geertse, Daniëlle van der Waal, Willem Vreuls, Eric Tetteroo, Lucien E M Duijm, Ruud M Pijnappel, Mireille J M Broeders

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Tanya D GeertseDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: tanya.geertse@radboudumc.nl.
Daniëlle van der WaalDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Willem VreulsCanisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Department of Radiology Weg Door, Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Eric TetterooAmphia Hospital, Department of Radiology Molengracht 21, 4818 CK, Breda, the Netherlands.
Lucien E M DuijmCanisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Department of Radiology Weg Door, Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Ruud M PijnappelDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityDepartment of Radiology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mireille J M BroedersDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Radboud University Medical CenterDepartment for Health Evidence Geert Grooteplein 21, 6525 EZ, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Dutch breast cancer screening, solitary, new or growing well-circumscribed masses should be recalled for further assessment. This results in cancers detected but also in false positive recalls, especially at initial screening. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics of well-circumscribed masses at mammography and identify potential methods to improve the recall strategy.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. In addition, follow-up data were retrieved on all 8860 recalled women in a Dutch screening region from 2014 to 2019.

resultsBased on 15 articles identified in the literature search, we found that probably benign well-circumscribed masses that were kept under surveillance had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0-2%. New or enlarging solitary well-circumscribed masses had a PPV of 10-12%. In general the detected carcinomas had a favorable prognosis. In our exploration of screening practice, 25% of recalls (2133/8860) were triggered by a well-circumscribed mass. Those recalls had a PPV of 2.0% for initial and 10.6% for subsequent screening. Most detected carcinomas had a favorable prognosis as well.

conclusionTo recognize malignancies presenting as well-circumscribed masses, identifying solitary, new or growing lesions is key. This information is missing at initial screening since prior examinations are not available, leading to a low PPV. Access to prior clinical examinations may therefore improve this PPV. In addition, given the generally favorable prognosis of screen-detected malignant well-circumscribed masses, one may opt to recall these lesions at subsequent screening, if grown, rather than at initial screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinomaFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningPredictive Value of TestsBreast cancerFalse positive screening outcomesProbably benign lesionsScreening populationWell-circumscribed masses

Identifiers

PMID37169601
PMCPMC10300612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.