Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38639912›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2024

Re-attendance in supplemental breast MRI screening rounds of the DENSE trial for women with extremely dense breasts.

Stefanie G A Veenhuizen, Sophie E L van Grinsven, Isabelle L Laseur, Marije F Bakker, Evelyn M Monninkhof, Stéphanie V de Lange, Ruud M Pijnappel, Ritse M Mann, Marc B I Lobbes, Katya M Duvivier and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Stefanie G A VeenhuizenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sophie E L van GrinsvenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Isabelle L LaseurJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marije F BakkerJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Evelyn M MonninkhofJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Stéphanie V de LangeJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ruud M PijnappelDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marc B I LobbesDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Katya M DuvivierDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mathijn D F de JongDepartment of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, P.O. Box 90153, 5200 ME, 'S-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Claudette E LooDepartment of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nico KarssemeijerDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Paul J van DiestDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wouter B VeldhuisDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Carla H van GilsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. c.vangils@umcutrecht.nl.
DENSE Trial Study Group

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding DCS-UU-2009-4348KWF Kankerbestrijding UU-2014-6859KWF Kankerbestrijding UU-2014-7151Pharmaceuticals Bayer BSP-DENSEStichting A Sister's Hope Pink Ribbon-10074Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht UMCU DENSEZonMw ZONMW-200320002-UMCUZonMw ZonMW Preventie 50-53125-98-014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSupplemental MRI screening improves early breast cancer detection and reduces interval cancers in women with extremely dense breasts in a cost-effective way. Recently, the European Society of Breast Imaging recommended offering MRI screening to women with extremely dense breasts, but the debate on whether to implement it in breast cancer screening programs is ongoing. Insight into the participant experience and willingness to re-attend is important for this discussion.

methodsWe calculated the re-attendance rates of the second and third MRI screening rounds of the DENSE trial. Moreover, we calculated age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) to study the association between characteristics and re-attendance. Women who discontinued MRI screening were asked to provide one or more reasons for this.

resultsThe re-attendance rates were 81.3% (3458/4252) and 85.2% (2693/3160) in the second and third MRI screening round, respectively. A high age (> 65 years), a very low BMI, lower education, not being employed, smoking, and no alcohol consumption were correlated with lower re-attendance rates. Moderate or high levels of pain, discomfort, or anxiety experienced during the previous MRI screening round were correlated with lower re-attendance rates. Finally, a plurality of women mentioned an examination-related inconvenience as a reason to discontinue screening (39.1% and 34.8% in the second and third screening round, respectively).

conclusionsThe willingness of women with dense breasts to re-attend an ongoing MRI screening study is high. However, emphasis should be placed on improving the MRI experience to increase the re-attendance rate if widespread supplemental MRI screening is implemented. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: For many women, MRI is an acceptable screening method, as re-attendance rates were high - even for screening in a clinical trial setting. To further enhance the (re-)attendance rate, one possible approach could be improving the overall MRI experience. KEY POINTS: • The willingness to re-attend in an ongoing MRI screening study is high. • Pain, discomfort, and anxiety in the previous MRI screening round were related to lower re-attendance rates. • Emphasis should be placed on improving MRI experience to increase the re-attendance rate in supplemental MRI screening.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceBreast densityBreast neoplasmsEarly detection of cancerMagnetic resonance imagingPatient participation

Identifiers

PMID38639912
PMCPMC11399182

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.