ArticleInternational journal of cancer2016
Are international differences in breast cancer survival between Australia and the UK present amongst both screen-detected women and non-screen-detected women? survival estimates for women diagnosed in West Midlands and New South Wales 1997-2006.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Method of primary breast cancer detection and the disease-free interval, adjusting for lead time.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a population-based breast cancer screening in North China.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Adverse health effects after breast cancer up to 14 years after diagnosis.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Review
- Impact of deprivation on breast cancer survival among women eligible for mammographic screening in the West Midlands (UK) and New South Wales (Australia): Women diagnosed 1997-2006.International journal of cancer · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We examined survival in screened-detected and non-screen-detected women diagnosed in the West Midlands (UK) and New South Wales (Australia) in order to evaluate whether international differences in survival are related to early diagnosis, or to other factors relating to the healthcare women receive. Data for women aged 50 - 65 years who had been eligible for screening from 50 years were examined. Data for 5,628 women in West Midlands and 6,396 women in New South Wales were linked to screening service records (mean age at diagnosis 53.7 years). We estimated net survival and modelled the excess hazard ratio of breast cancer death by screening status. Survival was lower for women in the West Midlands than in New South Wales (5-year net survival 90.9% [95% CI 89.9%-91.7%] compared with 93.4% [95% CI 92.6%-94.1%], respectively). The difference was greater between the two populations of non-screen-detected women (4.9%) compared to between screen-detected women, (1.8% after adjustment for lead-time and over-diagnosis). The adjusted excess hazard ratio of breast cancer death for West Midlands compared with New South Wales was greater in the non-screen-detected group (EHR 2.00, 95% CI 1.70 - 2.31) but not significantly different to that for women whose cancer had been screen-detected (EHR 1.72, 95% CI 0.87 - 2.56). In this study more than one in three breast cancer deaths in the West Midlands would have been avoided if survival had been the same as in New South Wales. The possibility that women in the UK receive poorer treatment is an important potential explanation which should be examined with care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.