Scopus Publication Detail
The publication detail shows the title, authors (with indicators showing other profiled authors), information on the publishing organization, abstract and a link to the article in Scopus. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the publication.
Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn; Diana L. Miglioretti; Natasha K. Stout; Sandra J. Lee; Clyde B. Schechter; Diana S.M. Buist; Hui Huang; Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; et al. (Profiled Author: Heidi Nelson)
Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012;156(9):609-618.Abstract
Background: Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States. Objective: To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years. Design: Comparative modeling study. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature. Target Population: A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial). Outcome Measures: Benefits: life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, falsepositive findings/deaths averted. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions. Limitation: Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance. Conclusion: Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute. © 2012 American College of Physicians.
This section shows information related to the publication - computed using the fingerprint of the publication - including related publications, related experts with fingerprints representing significant amounts of overlap between their fingerprint and this publication. The red dots indicate whether those experts or terms appear within the publication, thereby showing potential and actual connections.
Andrea J. Cook; Joann G. Elmore; Diana L. Miglioretti; Edward A. Sickles; Erin J. Aiello Bowles; Gary R. Cutter; Patricia A. CarneyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010;63(4):441-451.
William E. Barlow; Emily White; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Pamela M. Vacek; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Patricia A. Carney; Jeffrey A. Tice; Diana S.M. Buist; Berta M. Geller; Robert Rosenberg; et al.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2006;98(17):1204-1214.
Ricardo Jimenez-Lee; Selene G. Oslak; Katrina Hedberg; John T. Vetto; Charles P. Theuer; William P. Schecter; Lawrence D. Wagman; Maria D. AlloArchives of Surgery. 2003;138(8):884-890.
Appears in this Document