ArticleCancer medicine2019
Breast cancer screening: Impact on care pathways.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergency cancer diagnosis in Paris: A cross-sectional study using AP-HP data.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer Screening and BI-RADS Scoring Trends Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in an Academic Safety-Net Hospital.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Screening is associated with lower mastectomy rates in eastern Switzerland beyond stage effects.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Disruptions in preventive care: Mammograms during the COVID-19 pandemic.Health services research · 2021Article
- Breast cancer screening: Impact on care pathways.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Epidemiological trends, prognostic factors, and survival outcomes of synchronous brain metastases from 2015 to 2019: a population-based study.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControversy persists concerning screening programs (SPs), related to a potential risk of overdiagnosis or the impact on survival. One of the main questions to be addressed concerns the aggressiveness of the related treatments.
methodsUsing the "Cancer Cohort," a national-based cohort (medico-administrative database), all women between the ages of 50 and 74 years and treated in 2014 for incident breast cancer were compared, according to whether their diagnosis was made following a mammogram performed within the framework of the SP (SP group) or outside it (NSP group).
resultsA total of 23 788 women were identified: 13 530 (57%) in the SP group and 10 258 (43%) in the NSP group. The women in the SP group had a higher rate of in situ or localized invasive breast cancer. They had a higher rate of breast-conserving surgery (82% vs 70%), and a lower rate of chemotherapy (34% vs 53%). These findings were observed irrespective of the stage. They had a higher rate of pathways involving breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. Among women with metastatic cancer, those in the SP group had a lower proportion of liver, lung, brain, and bone metastases, and a higher proportion of lymph node metastases (other than axillary), irrespective of the time to onset of the metastases.
conclusionThe women in whom cancer was diagnosed following a mammogram performed in the context of the SP had less advanced cancer and less aggressive treatments. This observational study helps illustrate the benefit of the SP in France using a different approach.
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.