ArticleJAMA2024
Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Article in JAMA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of an annotation-free artificial intelligence system for simultaneous detection and diagnosis on breast ultrasonography: a multireader, multicase study across diverse healthcare professionals.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Application of Innovation Tournament methodology to inform de-implementation strategies: lessons learned in addressing mammography overscreening in older women.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Enhancing the OncoSim-Breast model using Canadian breast density information.Health reports · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Density-Targeted Supplemental Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening by Breast Cancer Risk: Long-Term Health and Economic Considerations.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Risk-based guidance for choosing fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a modeling study.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Optimizing mobile mammography deployment in Oklahoma 2024: a two-step floating catchment area approach.Geospatial health · 2026Article
- Five-Year Absolute Risk-Based and Age-Based Breast Cancer Screening in the US.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Analysis of the challenges in ensuring robust and effective clinical evaluation of AI-based digital medical devices.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Review
- The Role of Tumor pH in Breast Cancer Imaging: Biology, Diagnostic Applications, and Emerging Techniques.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Real-world data and evidence: pioneering frontiers in precision oncology.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2025Review
- Pathogenic Variants, Family History, and Cumulative Risk of Breast Cancer in US Women.JAMA oncology · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a histology-specific natural history model of ovarian cancer.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- Spatial accessibility for deploying mobile lung cancer screenings in a rural state using two-step floating catchment spatial analysis in Oklahoma, United States 2025.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- RPL17 regulates the progression of breast cancer accompanied by MAPK signaling activation.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Article
- Breast cancer screening in women aged 75 and older: Insights from an aging region in Japan.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of a Simulation Model-Based Tool to Support Individualized Physical Activity Discussions and Prescriptions for Breast Cancer Survivors.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Predicting the quality of digital mammography from the perspective of detectability of microcalcifications: A Radiomics approach.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Developing a website to help women aged 55 + incorporate risk in decision-making about breast cancer screening and prevention medications.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.
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.