ArticlePloS one2017
Comparison of patients with small (≤2 cm) breast cancer according to adherence to breast screening program.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cracking the code: Pioneering early detection and management of breast cancer in the Brazilian public healthcare system.Dialogues in health · 2025Review
- Adipose Tissue and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Does Sex Matter?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
- Factors Associated with Initial Mode of Breast Cancer Detection among Black Women in the Women's Circle of Health Study.Journal of oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated whether adherence to breast screening would yield a clinical benefit even among patients with small breast cancer (≤2 cm) by comparing differences between those who did and did not adhere to breast screening.
methodsPatients who were diagnosed with invasive T1 breast cancer and treated at Gangnam Severance Hospital from January 2006 to June 2014 were included. Of the 632 study patients, 450 and 182 were classified as screen-adherent and non-adherent. Adherence to the breast screening program was defined as the completion of breast screening examinations within 3 years before cancer diagnosis. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were compared between the groups. Propensity score matching were applied to compare survival outcome.
resultsAdherent patients were more likely to have a lower histologic grade (P < 0.001), high estrogen receptor expression (P = 0.040), and lower HER2-positivity (P = 0.026). The adherent group had more favorable subtypes compared to the non-adherent group, with a greater percentage of Luminal/HER2-negative subtype (66.7% vs. 56.5%) and a lower percentage of HER2 subtype (8.3% vs. 16.7%). The RFS and MFS were significantly better in the adherent group (P = 0.003, 0.010, respectively). In the case-matched cohort, superior survival of the adherent group was maintained.
conclusionsAdherence to breast screening in patients with small breast tumors was associated with more favorable tumor biology and better prognosis. Our findings suggest that adherence to breast screening might offer clinical benefits in terms of tumor biology as well as early detection.
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.