ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Interhospital variations in diagnostic work-up following recall at biennial screening mammography-a population-based study.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesQuality control in breast cancer screening programmes has been subject of several studies. However, less is known about the clinical diagnostic work-up in recalled women with a suspicious finding at screening mammography. The current study focuses on interhospital differences in diagnostic work-up strategies. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective analysis, using a prospectively obtained database, we included 17,809 women who participated in the Dutch national screening programme between 2009 and 2019 and were recalled to a hospital for analysis of a suspicious mammographic abnormality. The diagnostic work-up (e.g., type and frequency of additional imaging and biopsy) in the different hospitals were compared and analysed by multivariable analysis to correct for confounders.
resultsUse of biopsy varied from 36.7% to 48.7% (p < 0.001) between hospitals, and the use of problem-solving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from 2.1% to 6.9% (p < 0.001). These interhospital differences remained after correction for patients and tumour characteristics. The percentage of women with a delayed breast cancer diagnosis, defined as histopathological confirmation of breast cancer more than three months after recall or first analysis in the hospital, varied from 2.7% to 6.1% between hospitals (p = 0.07).
conclusionsIn our screening region interhospital differences were observed in diagnostic work-up following recall at biennial screening mammography. Though statistically significant, absolute differences were small, and therefore, their clinical impact appears to be limited. KEY POINTS: Question It is unclear how diagnostic work-up strategies vary between hospitals for women recalled after suspicious findings in breast cancer screening. Findings Significant differences in biopsy techniques and the use of problem-solving MRI were observed, though the clinical impact of these variations is likely to be marginal. Clinical relevance Evaluation of interhospital variation in the diagnostic work-up strategies after recall may aid in optimising the quality of breast cancer care and, indirectly, the effectiveness of the screening programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39708083What 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.