Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37500574›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of radiology2023

Impact of Surveillance Mammography Intervals Less Than One Year on Performance Measures in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Janie M Lee, Laura E Ichikawa, Karen J Wernli, Erin J A Bowles, Jennifer M Specht, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana L Miglioretti, Kathryn P Lowry, Anna N A Tosteson, Natasha K Stout and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Janie M LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6452-8168
Laura E IchikawaKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0882-6662
Karen J WernliKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7945-0327
Erin J A BowlesKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6287-7391
Jennifer M SpechtFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1484-2113
Karla KerlikowskeDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8793-8779
Diana L MigliorettiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5547-1833
Kathryn P LowryDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-7855
Anna N A TostesonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7718-8943
Natasha K StoutDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7946-5649
Nehmat HoussamiThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney and Cancer Council New South Wales, Kings Cross, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3641-952X
Tracy OnegaThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1633-3040
Diana S M BuistKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5408-2804
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of Washington · USKaiser Permanente · USCancer Council NSW · AUDartmouth College · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USHarvard University · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · US

Funding

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
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
Group Health Cancer Research Program Research Specialist AwardR50CA211115 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BOWLES, ERIN JANELLE AIELLO · 2017 to 2021
$919k
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS R50 CA211115NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWhen multiple surveillance mammograms are performed within an annual interval, the current guidance for one-year follow-up to determine breast cancer status results in shared follow-up periods in which a single breast cancer diagnosis can be attributed to multiple preceding examinations, posing a challenge for standardized performance assessment. We assessed the impact of using follow-up periods that eliminate the artifactual inflation of second breast cancer diagnoses. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe evaluated surveillance mammograms from 2007-2016 in women with treated breast cancer linked with tumor registry and pathology outcomes. Second breast cancers included ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer diagnosed during one-year follow-up. The cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, and specificity were compared using different follow-up periods: standard one-year follow-up per the American College of Radiology versus follow-up that was shortened at the next surveillance mammogram if less than one year (truncated follow-up). Performance measures were calculated overall and by indication (screening, evaluation for breast problem, and short interval follow-up).

resultsOf 117971 surveillance mammograms, 20% (n = 23533) were followed by another surveillance mammogram within one year. Standard follow-up identified 1597 mammograms that were associated with second breast cancers. With truncated follow-up, the breast cancer status of 179 mammograms (11.2%) was revised, resulting in 1418 mammograms associated with unique second breast cancers. The interval cancer rate decreased with truncated versus standard follow-up (3.6 versus 4.9 per 1000 mammograms, respectively), with a difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1). The overall sensitivity increased to 70.4% from 63.7%, for the truncated versus standard follow-up, with a difference (95% CI) of 6.6% (5.6%, 7.7%). The specificity remained stable at 98.1%.

conclusionTruncated follow-up, if less than one year to the next surveillance mammogram, enabled second breast cancers to be associated with a single preceding mammogram and resulted in more accurate estimates of diagnostic performance for national benchmarks.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningRegistriesBreast cancer screeningDiagnostic performanceMammographyOutcome assessment

Identifiers

PMID37500574
PMCPMC10400369
OpenAlexW4385256472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.