ArticleEuropean journal of public health2024
Impact of different age ranges on the benefits and harms of the breast cancer screening programme by the EU-TOPIA tool.
Article in European journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe recommendation for the implementation of mammography screening in women aged 45-49 and 70-74 is conditional with moderate certainty of the evidence. The aim of this study is to simulate the long-term outcomes (2020-50) of using different age range scenarios in the breast cancer screening programme of the Valencia Region (Spain), considering different programme participation rates.
methodsThree age range scenarios (S) were simulated with the EU-TOPIA tool, considering a biennial screening interval: S1, 45-69 years old (y); S2, 50-69 y and S3, 45-74 y. Simulations were performed for four participation rates: A = current participation (72.7%), B = +5%, C = +10% and D = +20%. Considered benefits: number (N°) of in situ and invasive breast cancers (BC) (screen vs. clinically detected), N° of BC deaths and % BC mortality reduction. Considered harms: N° of false positives (FP) and % overdiagnosis.
resultsThe results showed that BC mortality decreased in all scenarios, being higher in S3A (32.2%) than S1A (30.6%) and S2A (27.9%). Harms decreased in S2A vs. S1A (N° FP: 236 vs. 423, overdiagnosis: 4.9% vs. 5.0%) but also benefits (BC mortality reduction: 27.9% vs. 30.6%, N° screen-detected invasive BC 15/28 vs. 18/25). In S3A vs. S1A, an increase in benefits was observed (BC mortality reduction: 32.2% vs. 30.6%), N° screen-detected in situ B: 5/2 vs. 4/3), but also in harms (N° FP: 460 vs. 423, overdiagnosis: 5.8% vs. 5.0%). Similar trends were observed with increased participation.
conclusionsAs the age range increases, so does not only the reduction in BC mortality, but also the probability of FP and overdiagnosis.
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.