Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41557352›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Five-Year Absolute Risk-Based and Age-Based Breast Cancer Screening in the US.

Oguzhan Alagoz, Yifan Lu, Eugenio Gil Quessep, Karla Kerlikowske, Jeanne S Mandelblatt, Brian L Sprague, Amy Trentham-Dietz, John Hampton, Rick Groeneweg, Harry J de Koning and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. 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

16 authors.

Oguzhan AlagozDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Yifan LuDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Eugenio Gil QuessepDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartment of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco.
Jeanne S MandelblattDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Brian L SpragueDepartment of Surgery and the University of Vermont Cancer Center, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Amy Trentham-DietzDepartment of Population Health Sciences and the Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
John HamptonDepartment of Population Health Sciences and the Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Rick GroenewegDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Diana L MigliorettiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of California at Davis.
Clyde B SchechterDepartment of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.
Nicolien T van RavesteynDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Anna N A TostesonGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, and Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Natasha K StoutDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Kathryn P LowryDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KARLA M KERLIKOWSKE · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Identifying effective risk-based supplemental ultrasound screening strategies for women with dense breastsR01CA248068 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI Diana L Miglioretti, Brian L Sprague · 2020 to 2026
$5.1M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS R01 CA248068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: General mammography screening guidelines target women at average risk within a specified age range (age based) and do not consider absolute risk of individual women at a given age (risk based). Objective: To compare outcomes of mammography screening strategies that vary by 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer vs age-based strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical model used 2 established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer models and simulated US women born in 1980 who were aged 40 years or older without a prior history of breast cancer. Modeling analyses were conducted from April 2023 to April 2025. Intervention: Digital breast tomosynthesis delivered via 50 screening strategies (3 age based and 47 risk based) vs a no-screening scenario. Five-year absolute invasive breast cancer risk was based on the validated Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, version 3 calculator. Women's 5-year breast cancer risk was categorized as low, average, intermediate, or high. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included lifetime number of breast cancer deaths averted and false-positive screening recalls. Lifetime outcomes were averaged across models and expressed per 1000 women screened. Results: Nine risk-based screening strategies were associated with a comparable or greater number of deaths averted than biennial age-based screening from ages 40 to 74 years (B40-74) (range across strategies for mean model estimates, 6.8-7.5 per 1000 women vs 6.8 per 1000 women) as well as reduced false-positive recalls by 8% to 23% (1050-1257 per 1000 women for risk-based screening strategies vs 1365 per 1000 women for B40-74). For example, a risk-based approach using a combination of biennial screening (for women at low risk aged 55-74 years, at average risk aged 50-59 years, at intermediate risk aged 45-54 years, and at high risk aged 40-49 years) and annual screening (for women at average risk aged 60-74 years, at intermediate risk aged 55-74 years, and at high risk aged 50-74 years) would be associated with 6% more breast cancer deaths averted than B40-74 (7.2 vs 6.8 per 1000 women) and 13% fewer false-positive recalls (1190 vs 1365 per 1000 women). Results were consistent across the 2 CISNET models, and the relative difference in breast cancer deaths averted between B40-74 and risk-based screening strategies was more pronounced than for life-years gained. Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytical modeling study of breast cancer screening, population risk-based screening using 5-year invasive breast cancer risk was associated with similar or greater benefits than age-based screening as well as reduced false-positive recalls. As personalized medicine advances, risk-based screening is poised to become a cornerstone of breast cancer prevention, offering a more nuanced and tailored approach to patient care.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyMass ScreeningAdultAgedAge FactorsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41557352
PMCPMC12820738

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.