Trial reportJAMA2026
Risk-Based vs Annual Breast Cancer Screening: The WISDOM Randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
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.
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.
Enabling a Paradigm Shift: A Preference-Tolerant RCT of Personalized vs. Annual Screening for Breast Cancer (Wisdom Study)
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and pilot testing of a prostate cancer polygenic risk report.BMC medical genomics · 2026Trial
- Fragmented ownership and multilevel barriers to breast MRI screening among high-risk women: A qualitative study informing development of clinical decision support.Research square · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Evolving attitudes towards cancer screening: a 2024 update of UK population views.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- 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) · 2026Article
- Understanding patient perspectives on breast cancer risk: a qualitative study to inform genetic testing communication in the primary care setting.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- EBCC-15 manifesto: Removing age-related barriers to improve equity in breast cancer care.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Review
- Real-World Evidence for Breast Cancer Risk Stratification: Insights from the P.I.N.K. Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- Constructing Genetic Risk Scores: Robust Bayesian Approach through Projected Summary Statistics and Flexible Shrinkage.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2026Article
- An introduction to polygenic scores - methodological basics and recent advances.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026Article
- Polygenic risk scores in cancer.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026Article
- Breast cancer polygenic risk score performance varies by socioeconomic status.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer Among African American Women With High Risk.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- WISDOM randomized trial comparing risk-based versus annual breast cancer screening: study cohort characteristics and design.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Article
- Familial Disclosure and Cascade Testing in High-Risk Families is Influenced by Gene Variant Penetrance: Implications for Family based Breast Cancer Prevention.Research square · 2026Article
- Article
- Personalized prevention for all: changing how we approach the future of prevention.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Errors in Table.JAMA · 2026Article
- Perspectives from a multi-stakeholder workshop for implementing a risk-stratified breast cancer screening program in Canada.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Outcomes of Density-Targeted Supplemental Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening by Breast Cancer Risk: Long-Term Health and Economic Considerations.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issuedErrors in Table.2026
Authors and funding
39 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.