Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41042510›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Outcomes by Mammography Participation in Immediate Past Screening.

Xinhe Mao, Wei He, Jose Tapia, Natalie Holowko, Jenny Bergqvist, Keith Humphreys, Kamila Czene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Xinhe MaoDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Wei HeDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jose TapiaDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Natalie HolowkoThe Ritchie Centre, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Victoria, Australia.
Jenny BergqvistDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Keith HumphreysDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kamila CzeneDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Mammography screening is essential for the early detection of breast cancer; however, delayed detection among screen-detected breast cancers (SDBCs) is rarely studied. Objectives: To investigate whether women diagnosed with SDBC who missed the screening round immediately before the diagnostic round experience clinically significant delays in detection and whether tumor characteristics vary. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective register-based cohort study included all women diagnosed with SDBC in Stockholm, Sweden, between January 1, 1995, and February 28, 2020, with a follow-up until December 31, 2022. Data were analyzed from November 5, 2023, to May 27, 2024. Exposure: Nonparticipation in the screening immediately prior to the diagnostic round. Main Outcomes and Measures: Tumor characteristics and breast cancer-specific survival. Results: Among 8602 women with SDBC (median age at diagnosis, 61 [IQR, 55-66] years), 1482 (17.2%) did not attend the immediate past screening. Nonparticipants in the past screening were more likely to have larger tumors (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.55 [95% CI, 1.37-1.76] for a tumor size ≥20 mm), lymph node involvement (AOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.12-1.45), and distant metastasis (AOR, 4.64 [95% CI, 2.10-10.29]) and less likely to have estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer (AOR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60-0.92]); however, there were no differences in progesterone receptor status (AOR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.83-1.11]) or ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu) status (AOR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.81-1.24]). In addition, these women experienced poorer breast cancer-specific survival, with an adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.08-1.65). There was no association after adjusting for tumor characteristics (AHR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.89-1.38]). Additionally, no association was found between nonparticipation in the second-to-last screening and tumor characteristics among those with screen-detected breast cancers (AHR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.80-1.19] for stage II tumors or higher). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that some women with SDBC experience delayed detection and have clinically relevant worse outcomes. Future research is needed to investigate whether advancing the next mammography screening invitation date could enhance early detection and improve breast cancer outcomes in this population.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyMass ScreeningAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRegistriesSweden

Identifiers

PMID41042510
PMCPMC12495498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.