ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2025
Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) and long-term breast cancer mortality in the Women's Health Initiative.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Deep learning mammography-based breast cancer risk model, its serial change, and breast cancer mortality.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) predicts breast cancer incidence, the model's performance, re-purposed to predict breast cancer mortality, is uncertain. Therefore, we examined whether the BCRAT model predicts breast cancer mortality in postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI).
methodsBCRAT 5-year breast cancer incidence risk estimates were calculated for 145,408 women (aged 50-79 years) enrolled in the WHI at 40 US clinical centers to examine associations of BCRAT risk groups (< 1%, 1-< 3%, ≥ 3%) with breast cancer mortality using Cox proportional regression modeling in all participants and in those with incident breast cancer.
resultsWomen with BCRAT ≥ 3% risk, compared to women with BCRAT < 1% risk, were older (age 70-79 years: 38.3% versus 5.3%), less commonly Black (1.1% versus 40.2%), and had stronger breast cancer family history. With 20-years follow-up, considering all participants, with 8,849 breast cancers and 1,076 breast cancer deaths, breast cancer mortality in BCRAT group ≥ 3% was not higher versus BCRAT group < 1% (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.06 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.80-1.40): percent without 20-year breast cancer mortality; 99.4% [group < 1%] and 98.8% [group ≥ 3%]. Considering women with incident breast cancer, breast cancer mortality was also not higher in BCRAT group ≥ 3% versus BCRAT group < 1% (HR 1.07 95% CI 0.79-1.45).
conclusionsThe BCRAT model, at ≥ 3% 5-year incidence risk (US guideline threshold for chemoprevention), does not identify women with higher breast cancer mortality risk, with implications for breast cancer prevention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39254768What 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.