ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2023
Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mepitel Film Versus StrataXRT in Managing Radiation Dermatitis in an Intra-Patient Controlled Clinical Trial of 80 Postmastectomy Patients.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Trial
- Predictive Value of Routine Imaging for the Diagnosis of Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to benchmark and compare breast cancer care quality indicators (QIs) between Norway and the Netherlands using federated analytics preventing transfer of patient-level data.
methodsBreast cancer patients (2017-2018) were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Cancer Registry of Norway. Five European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) QIs were assessed: two on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), two on surgical approaches, and one on postoperative radiotherapy. The QI outcomes were calculated using 'Vantage 6' federated Propensity Score Stratification (PSS). Likelihood of receiving a treatment was expressed in odds ratios (OR).
resultsIn total, 39,163 patients were included (32,786 from the Netherlands and 6377 from Norway). PSS scores were comparable to the crude outcomes of the QIs. The Netherlands scored higher on the QI 'proportions of patients preoperatively examined with breast MRI' [37% vs.17.5%; OR 2.8 (95% CI 2.7-2.9)], the 'proportions of patients receiving primary systemic therapy examined with breast MRI' [83.3% vs. 70.8%; OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.3-3.3)], and 'proportion of patients receiving a single breast operation' [95.2% vs. 91.5%; OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.4-2.2)]. Country scores for 'immediate breast reconstruction' and 'postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery' were comparable. The EUSOMA standard was achieved in both countries for 4/5 indicators.
conclusionBoth countries achieved high scores on the QIs. Differences were observed in the use of MRI and proportion of patients receiving single surgery. The federated approach supports future possibilities on benchmark QIs without transfer of privacy-sensitive data.
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.