ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2024
Method of primary breast cancer detection and the disease-free interval, adjusting for lead time.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2024. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world impact of organised mammography screening on breast cancer mortality: A population-based case-control study.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Breast cancer incidence, by stage at diagnosis, and mortality in 21 European countries in the era of mammography screening: an international population-based study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Comparative Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography for Surveillance After Breast Cancer Treatment.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2025Article
- Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Outcomes by Mammography Participation in Immediate Past Screening.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Extending catchment area approaches to a community cancer center: a breast cancer hotspot case study.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Impact of Method of Detection of Breast Cancer on Clinical Outcomes in Individuals Aged 40 Years or Older.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Observational
- Breast cancer patients enrolled in the Swiss mammography screening program "donna" demonstrate prolonged survival.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the impact of screen-detected breast cancer compared with clinically detected breast cancer on the disease-free interval (ie, free from locoregional recurrences, distant metastasis, contralateral breast cancer). Moreover, it is thought that most studies overestimate the beneficial effect of screening, as they do not adjust for lead time. We investigated the association between method of breast cancer detection and disease-free interval, taking lead time into account.
methodsWomen aged 50-76 years, diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2008 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Women diagnosed in 2005 were divided into screen-detected and clinically detected cancer and had a follow-up of 10 years (2005 cohort). Women diagnosed in 2006-2008 were divided into screen-detected, interval, and nonscreen-related cancer and had a follow-up of 5 years (2006-2008 cohort). A previously published method was used to adjust for lead time. Analyses were repeated correcting for confounding variables instead of lead time.
resultsThe 2005 cohort included 6215 women. Women with screen-detected cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with clinically detected cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.87). The 2006-2008 cohort included 15 176 women. Women with screen-detected or interval cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with nonscreen-related cancer (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.88; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.99, respectively). Correcting for confounders instead of lead time did not change associations.
conclusionWomen with screen-detected cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with a nonscreen-related or clinically detected cancer, after correction for lead time.
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.