ArticleBMC cancer2018
Aggressive primary treatments with favourable 5-year survival for screen-interval breast cancers.
Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Missed and true interval cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammograms: radiologists' assessment and artificial intelligence markings.Acta radiologica open · 2026Article
- Risk factors for interval breast cancer: insights from a decade of a mammography screening program.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Radiological features of screening-detected and interval breast cancers and subsequent survival in Eastern Finnish women.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a population-based breast cancer screening in North China.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Interval Breast Cancers Compared With Screening-Detected Breast Cancers.JAMA network open · 2020Observational
- Breast Density Notification: An Australian Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Interval breast cancer is associated with other types of tumors.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Breast cancer screening: Impact on care pathways.Cancer medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the impact of the participation in screening programme according to the mode of detection on the early diagnosis, treatment, and specific survival outcomes in women with breast cancer.
methodsWomen diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in Poitou-Charentes region (France) between 2008 and 2009 were classified into three groups, using data linkage of cancer registry, vital statistics and French organized screening programme: the screening programme (SP), interval cancer (IC), and non-screening programme detected cancer (NSP) groups. Specific survival rates were analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models.
resultsAmong 1613 patients, 65.7% (n = 1059) participated in a screening programme. The interval cancer rate was 17.1% (n = 181). Tumours in the IC group were diagnosed at a more advanced stage, i.e. with further regional lymph node metastasis or local spread, than those in the SP group (p < 0.001), but with significantly fewer metastases at diagnosis than in the NSP group (p < 0.001). ICs underwent more aggressive primary treatments than the two other groups, with 28% of radical mastectomy and 67% undergoing chemotherapy. The five-year survival rate for IC group were 92.0% (95% CI, 89.9-94.0%).
conclusionsInterval cancers had more aggressive features than screen-detected cancers but were diagnosed at a less advanced stage compared to non-screen detected cancers. Despite having cancers missed by the screening programme, women who participate in the screening process seem to benefit from early treatment. These results must be confirmed with long-term follow-up.
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.