Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41385349›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2026

Risk-Based vs Annual Breast Cancer Screening: The WISDOM Randomized Clinical Trial.

Laura J Esserman, Allison S Fiscalini, Arash Naeim, Laura J Van't Veer, Andrea Kaster, Maren T Scheuner, Andrea Z LaCroix, Alexander D Borowsky, Hoda Anton-Culver, Olufunmilayo I Olopade and 29 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyEquivalence TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02620852 (Enabling a Paradigm Shift), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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.

NCT02620852 narecruitingnot on this map

Enabling a Paradigm Shift: A Preference-Tolerant RCT of Personalized vs. Annual Screening for Breast Cancer (Wisdom Study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2016 to 2026Enrolled100,000ConditionsBreast Cancer Screening, Breast Carcinoma in Situ, Breast CancerArmsComplete a health questionnaire, Provide a saliva sample for genetic testing, Screening advice based on a comprehensive risk assessment, Screening advice based on a basic risk assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Determinants of stage at breast cancer diagnosis across different healthcare systems: an international multicentre cohort study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. European Cancer Prevention Organization on cancer screening: an expert panel position paper.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. An introduction to polygenic scores - methodological basics and recent advances.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026
    Article
  11. Polygenic risk scores in cancer.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026
    Article
  12. Breast cancer polygenic risk score performance varies by socioeconomic status.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Errors in Table.JAMA · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

39 authors.

Laura J EssermanUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Allison S FiscaliniUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Arash NaeimUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Laura J Van't VeerUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Andrea KasterSanford Health, Fargo, North Dakota.
Maren T ScheunerUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Andrea Z LaCroixUniversity of California, San Diego.
Alexander D BorowskyUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Hoda Anton-CulverUniversity of California, Irvine.
Olufunmilayo I OlopadeUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
James EssermanDiagnostic Center of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Rachael LancasterUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham.
Lisa MadlenskyUniversity of California, San Diego.
Amie M BlancoUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Katherine S RossUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Deborah L GoodmanUniversity of California, Irvine.
Barry S TongUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Michael HogarthUniversity of California, San Diego.
Diane HeditsianUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Susie BrainUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Vivian LeeUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Kelly BlumUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Mi-Ok KimUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Leah P SabacanUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Kirkpatrick B FergusUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Christina YauUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Hannah L ParkUniversity of California, Irvine.
Barbara A ParkerUniversity of California, San Diego.
Celia KaplanUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Kim F RhoadsVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Suzanne EderUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Kelly AdduciUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Jeffrey B MatthewsUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Neil S WengerUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Yiwey ShiehWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Robert A HiattUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Elad ZivUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Jeffrey A TiceUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Martin EklundKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

WISDOM: A platform to optimize subtype-specific screening and preventionP01CA281826 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LAURA J ESSERMAN, Laura J Van't Veer · 2024 to 2026
$13.5M
Extending the Diversity, Reach, and Generalizability of the WISDOM StudyR01CA237533 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ESSERMAN, LAURA J · 2020 to 2024
$9.1M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA281826NCI NIH HHS R01 CA237533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Individual breast cancer risk can guide screening initiation, frequency, use of supplemental imaging, and preventive measures to improve breast cancer screening by shifting resources from low-risk women to high-risk women. Objective: To determine whether risk-based breast cancer screening is a feasible alternative to annual mammography. Design, Setting, and Participants: Parallel-group, pragmatic, multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing risk-based (n = 14 212) with annual (n = 14 160) breast cancer screening. Women aged 40 to 74 years without prior diagnoses of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ, or prophylactic bilateral mastectomy, were recruited from all 50 US states from September 2016 to February 2023, with follow-up through September 5, 2025 (median follow-up, 5.1 years). Statistical analysis was conducted between July and November 2025. All study procedures were conducted via an online platform. Women who declined randomization were enrolled in an observational cohort. Interventions: Risk assessment included sequencing of 9 susceptibility genes, polygenic risk score, and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium version 2 model. The risk-based group received 1 of 4 recommendations: (1) highest risk (≥6% 5-year risk, high-penetrance pathogenic variant): alternating mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) every 6 months and counseling; (2) elevated risk (top 2.5 risk percentile by age): annual mammography and risk-reduction counseling; (3) average risk: biennial mammography; and (4) low risk (aged 40-49 years and <1.3% 5-year risk): no screening until risk is 1.3% or greater or age 50 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes included noninferiority for stage ≥IIB cancers and superiority in reducing biopsy rates. Secondary outcomes included identification of stage ≥IIA cancers, mammogram rates, uptake of prevention strategies in higher risk cohorts, preference for screening group in the observational cohort, ductal carcinoma in situ, MRI, and stage-specific cancer rates. Results: A total of 28 372 women were randomized. The mean (SD) age was 54 (9.6) years and the majority were non-Hispanic White (77%). The rate of stage ≥IIB cancers was noninferior in the risk-based compared with the annual group (risk-based: 30.0 [95% CI, 16.3-43.8] vs annual: 48.0 [95% CI, 30.1-65.5] per 100 000 person-years; rate difference, -18.0 per 100 000 person-years [95% CI, -40.2 to 4.1]). The rate of breast biopsies was not lower in the risk-based group (rate difference, 98.7 per 100 000 person-years [95% CI, -17.9 to 215.3]) despite fewer mammograms (rate difference, -3835.9 [95% CI, -4516.8 to -3154.9]). The cumulative incidence of cancer, biopsy, mammogram, and MRI increased as risk category increased. In the observational cohort, 89% of participants (15 980/18 031) chose risk based. Conclusions: Risk-based breast cancer screening that includes population-based genetic testing safely stratified risk and screening intensity, but did not reduce biopsy rates. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02620852.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingEarly Detection of CancerGenetic TestingMammographyAdultAgedBiopsyBreastCounselingFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenetic Risk ScoreHumansIncidence

Identifiers

PMID41385349
PMCPMC12701531

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.