ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Tumour growth rate and invasive interval cancer characteristics in a UK breast cancer screening population.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- A comparison of tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers and their relationship with breast density and AJCC prognostic stage in a UK screening cohort.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate tumour volume doubling time (TVDT) of interval cancers (ICs).
methodsTwo radiologists retrospectively reviewed prior screening and diagnostic mammograms and measured mean diameter on "visible" ICs. Univariate analyses of clinicopathological variables (ER, HER2, grade, age at diagnosis, and breast density) were undertaken, and those with p < 0.1 were included in a generalised linear model to estimate TVDT, cancer size at screening, and time of cancer visibility for "non-visible" tumours.
resultsFrom 2011 to 2018, 476 ICs were diagnosed, almost half in the third year after screening with 86% grade 2 or 3. A visible abnormality at screening was identified in 281/476 (59%) cases. Significant differences in TVDT were found with age (p < 0.02), ER status (p < 0.0001). Median TVDTs of grade 1, 2 and 3 cancers were 317, 288, and 195 days, respectively (p < 0.001). For non-visible cancers, the median estimated size at screening was 1.7 mm (IQR 1.0-2.5) for grade 1, 2.5 mm (IQR 1.5-5.9) for grade 2, and 0.9 mm (IQR 0.4-2.0) for grade 3 cancers, p < 0.001. The estimated time for cancer visibility was 489 days (IQR 229-682) after screening and 645 days (IQR 527-798) for cancers diagnosed in the third year after screening.
conclusionUsing TVDT of retrospectively visible interval cancers, non-visible interval cancer sizes can be estimated at the time of screening. Increasing the frequency of screening from three-yearly to two-yearly invitations would reduce the number of interval cancers significantly. KEY POINTS: Question Growth modelling of visible interval cancers (ICs) at screening helps to track the likely progression of non-visible ICs over the screening interval. Findings Tumour doubling time of visible ICs at screening is positively associated with age and ER status and inversely associated with cancer grade. Clinical relevance Interval cancer characterisation and growth modelling can be helpful to better predict the benefits of supplemental screening and the frequency of screening, given a minimum detectable size.
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.