ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2025
Mammography screening and incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in Italy: an age-period-cohort analysis.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 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.
- Imaging Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in the Era of De-Escalation: Role, Limits, and Clinical Implications for Risk-Adapted Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Tamoxifen Reduces Breast Cancer Recurrence in Women with DCIS Who Underwent Mastectomy.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is attributed to mammography screening, but the trend has so far been evaluated only descriptively.
methodsWe report an age-period-cohort modelling analysis of the incidence trend (1992-2017) observed among screening-aged women living in a region of northern Italy, where a mammography screening programme was implemented in 1996-98 (age 50-69 years) and 2010-14 (age 45-49 and 70-74 years).
resultsThe incidence of DCIS increased by an annual average of 9.1% (age 60-64 years) to 14.9% (age 70-74 years). The incidence peak followed a complex age-time pattern indicating an interaction between age and period, which suggested a cohort effect explained by the screening programme. In the age-period-cohort analysis, the birth cohort had a 2-fold effect. The nonlinear effect consisted of an increase in incidence for the generations of 1933-42 and 1943-52, targeted by screening since 1997, and of a second increase for the cohort of 1963-72, first invited in 2010. Taking into account the early excess incidence due to the introduction of the screening programme, the linear effect consisted of an annual 4.0% increase in the risk of DCIS for all successive birth cohorts or calendar periods, which was only partially attributable to the programme.
conclusionsThe increase in incidence rates resulted from an increased detection of DCIS through the screening programme and from an uptrend in the risk of diagnosis that can be attributed either to long-term changes in diagnostic scrutiny independent of the programme or to an increased exposure to risk factors.
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.