Trial reportPloS one2018
Multidimensional impact of breast cancer screening: Results of the multicenter prospective optisoins01 study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic signature to guide adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions for early breast cancer patients in France: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Factors influencing the delivery of cancer pathways: a summary of the literature.Journal of health organization and management · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer (BC) screening has been developed to detect earlier stage tumors associated with better prognosis. The aim of study was to evaluate the impact of BC screening on therapeutic management of patients with first operable BC, and on costs, patients' needs, and working life. OPTISOINS01 was a multicenter, prospective observational study which aimed to identify the main care pathway of early BC. Among patients aged from 50 to 74 years-old, 2 groups were defined: the "Clinical signs" group and the "Screening" group (national organized screening and individual screening). We compared between these 2 groups: locoregional and systemic treatments, direct medical and non-medical costs from a National Health Insurance perspective, patients' needs assessed by the validated SCNS-BR8 "breast cancer" module of the SCNS-SF34 supportive care needs survey and the duration of sick leave. The "Clinical signs" group included 89 patients, while the"Screening" group included 290 patients. More axillary lymph node dissections and radical breast surgery were performed in the "Clinical signs". The rate of adjuvant chemotherapy was dramatically higher in the "Clinical signs" group. The median direct medical costs of the "Screening" group were €11,860 (€3,643-€41,030) per year and per patient, much lower than in the "Clinical signs" group (€14,940; €5,317-€41,070). Finally, needs specifically assessed by the SCNS-BR8 questionnaire were significantly higher for the postoperative and post-adjuvant periods in the "Clinical signs" group. This study highlighted the benefit of BC screening in terms of reduced therapies and positive impact on work and social life.
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.