Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38969253›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2024

Relative Timing of Mammography and MRI for Breast Cancer Screening: Impact on Performance Evaluation.

Janie M Lee, Laura E Ichikawa, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana S M Buist, Christoph I Lee, Brian L Sprague, Louise M Henderson, Tracy Onega, Karen J Wernli, Kathryn P Lowry and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2024. 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

13 authors.

Janie M LeeSection Chief of Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Director of Breast Imaging, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: jmlee58@uw.edu.
Laura E IchikawaKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Karla KerlikowskeGeneral Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Women's Health Comprehensive Clinic, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California; Director of the San Francisco Mammography Registry and Co-Director at the Veteran's Administration Advanced Fellowship in Women's Health San Francisco; Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Diana S M BuistDepartment of Health Systems Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.
Christoph I LeeDirector of the Northwest Screening and Cancer Outcomes Research Enterprise, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Deputy Editor of JACR; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.
Brian L SpragueUniversity of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont; Director of the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System; University of Vermont Cancer Center Cancer Population Science (CPS) Program Co-Leader.
Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Director of the Carolina Mammography Registry and Co-Leader of UNC Lineberger Cancer Epidemiology Research Program.
Tracy OnegaSenior Director of Population Sciences, Department of Population Health Sciences, and the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Karen J WernliSenior Scientific Investigator, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Kathryn P LowryFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington; Associate Director of the Northwest Screening and Cancer Outcomes Research Enterprise, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Natasha K StoutDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; During the study period: Associate Professor, Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
Anna N A TostesonDirector of the Comparative Effectiveness Research Program, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Associate Director for Population Sciences, Dartmouth Cancer Center; Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Diana L MigliorettiProfessor and Division Chief of Biostatistics, Biostatistics and Population Sciences and Health Disparities Program, University of California, Davis, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Davis, California.

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
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMammography and MRI screening typically occur in combination or in alternating sequence. We compared multimodality screening performance accounting for the relative timing of mammography and MRI and overlapping follow-up periods.

methodsWe identified 8,260 screening mammograms performed 2005 to 2017 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, paired with screening MRIs within ±90 days (combined screening) or 91 to 270 days (alternating screening). Performance for combined screening (cancer detection rate [CDR] per 1,000 examinations and sensitivity) was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality, and with a single follow-up period treating the two tests as a single test. Alternating screening performance was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality and also with follow-up ending at the next screen if within 1 year (truncated follow-up).

resultsFor 3,810 combined screening pairs, CDR per 1,000 screens was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6-10.0) for mammography and 12.3 (95% CI: 9.3-16.4) for MRI as separate tests compared with 13.1 (95% CI: 10.0-17.3) as a single combined test. Sensitivity of each test was 48.1% (35.0%-61.5%) for mammography and 79.7% (95% CI: 67.7%-88.0%) for MRI compared with 96.2% (95% CI: 85.9%-99.0%) for combined screening. For 4,450 alternating screening pairs, mammography CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 3.6 (95% CI: 2.2-5.9) to zero with truncated follow-up; sensitivity was incalculable (denominator = 0). MRI CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 12.1 (95% CI 9.3-15.8) to 11.7 (95% CI: 8.9-15.3) with truncated follow-up; sensitivity changed from 75.0% (95% CI 63.8%-83.6%) to 86.7% (95% CI 75.5%-93.2%). DISCUSSION: Updating auditing approaches to account for combined and alternating screening sequencing and to address outcome attribution issues arising from overlapping follow-up periods can improve the accuracy of multimodality screening performance evaluation.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographySensitivity and SpecificityAdultAgedFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedTime FactorsUnited StatesBreast cancer screeningbreast MRImammographyscreening auditsupplemental screening

Identifiers

PMID38969253
PMCPMC12175960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.