View

The Study

Identification of the Fraction of Indolent Tumors and Associated Overdiagnosis in Breast Cancer Screening Trials

In simple terms

This study is like building a video game that simulates how breast cancer might grow, but it doesn't actually watch any real people. It tells us what might happen in the game, not what happens in real life.

0%

Analysis score

0/ 0

Maximum 0 for a computational/algorithm study.

Where the score came from

Reporting0
Methodology0
Publication100
Statistical0
Study type (basis of the score)
Computational/Algorithm Study
Level 5 - Expert opinion
What’s the bottom line?

Some breast cancers found by screening would never hurt you — they're too slow to ever cause problems. But we can't tell which ones they are just from screening data.

Where does this study sit?

Reviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)

Max 100

Randomized Trials

Max 90

Reviews of Cohort Studies

Max 85

Cohort Studies

Max 72

Reviews of Case-Control Studies

Max 63

Case-Control Studies

Max 58

Cross-Sectional & Case Series

Max 50

Expert Opinion

Max 5
StrongerWeaker
Expert Opinion
Level 5
0

0 / 100

Quality score

Based on clinical experience or non-systematic literature reviews. The lowest level of evidence as they are most susceptible to bias and personal perspective.

Cannot establish causation

Save studies & get personalized insights

Create a free account to save this study, track new evidence as it comes in, and get breakdowns of studies in the topics you care about.

Key takeaways

Summary

Based on the study abstract and findings.

  1. 1Yes — if we can't tell which tumors are harmless, we might treat too many people unnecessarily, causing harm without benefit.
  2. 2Extending follow-up after screening helps estimate how many tumors are harmless.
  3. 3Without long follow-up, models get it wrong — they think cancers grow faster and start earlier than they really do.

Score breakdown, methodology, conflicts of interest, evidence analysis & raw study data

Publication

Journal

American Journal of Epidemiology

Year

2018

Authors

M. Ryser, R. Gulati, M. Eisenberg, Yu Shen, E. Hwang, Ruth Etzioni

Open Access
16 citations
Analysis v5

Related Content

Claims (10)

Assertion

Finding and treating very slow-growing cancers through aggressive screening doesn’t help people live longer overall — it just finds cancers that wouldn’t have hurt them anyway.

Causal
Read analysis
Assertion

Some cancers found during routine screening might never hurt you — they grow so slowly that you’d die of something else before they ever became a problem.

Descriptive
Read analysis
Assertion

When scientists try to figure out how fast breast cancer grows and how many tumors are slow-moving, their calculations get less accurate if the numbers they use for slow-growing tumors or fast-growing tumors are too low or too high.

Quantitative
Read analysis
Assertion

If doctors don't keep an eye on breast cancer patients long enough after their last screening, they can't tell how fast the cancer is likely to grow — it's like trying to guess how long a candle will burn by only watching it for a few seconds.

Quantitative
Read analysis
Assertion

If doctors keep checking on women longer after their last breast cancer screening, they can better tell which tumors would never cause harm and which ones are likely to grow quickly—especially when cancers tend to develop slowly.

Quantitative
Read analysis
Assertion

When doctors stop screening for breast cancer, they can't tell exactly how many of the tumors found would never have caused harm, even with fancy math, because the data they have just isn't detailed enough to give clear answers.

Quantitative
Read analysis
Fit Body Science verdict — we translate health studies into clear verdicts backed by peer-reviewed research.

Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.