ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Readmissions and complications in breast ductal carcinoma in situ: A retrospective study comparing screen- and non-screen-detected patients.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Psychological Impact of Screen-Detected Cancer: A Systematic Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Quality of life issues in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Pooled it
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePopulation-wide mammographic screening programs aim to reduce breast cancer mortality. However, a broad view of the harms and benefits of these programs is necessary to favor informed decisions, especially in the earliest stages of the disease. Here, we compare the outcomes of patients diagnosed with breast ductal carcinoma in situ in participants and non-participants of a population-based mammographic screening program.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with breast ductal carcinoma in situ between 2000 and 2010 within a single hospital. A total of 211 patients were included, and the median follow-up was 8.4 years. The effect of detection mode (screen-detected and non-screen-detected) on breast cancer recurrences, readmissions, and complications was evaluated through multivariate logistic regression analysis.
resultsIn the majority of women, breast ductal carcinoma in situ was screen-detected (63.5%). Screen-detected breast ductal carcinoma in situ was smaller in size compared to those non-screen-detected (57.53% < 20 mm versus 78.03%, p = 0.002). Overall, breast-conserving surgery was the most frequent surgery (86.26%); however, mastectomy was higher in non-screen-detected breast ductal carcinoma in situ (20.78% versus 9.7%, p = 0.024). Readmissions for mastectomy were more frequent in non-screen-detected breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Psychological complications, such as fatigue, anxiety, and depression, had a prevalence of 15% within our cohort. Risk of readmissions and complications was higher within the non-screen-detected group, as evidenced by an odds ratio = 6.25 (95% confidence interval = 1.95-19.99) for readmissions and an odds ratio = 2.41 (95% confidence interval = 1.95-4.86) for complications.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that women with breast ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer diagnosed through population-based breast cancer screening program experience a lower risk of readmissions and complications than those diagnosed outside these programs. These findings can help aid women and health professionals make informed decisions regarding screening.
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.