ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Quality of life of women with a screen-detected versus clinically detected breast cancer in the Netherlands: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Psychological Impact of Screen-Detected Cancer: A Systematic Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Quality-adjusted life years in the presence and absence of organized mammographic screening using data from BreastScreen Norway.International journal of cancer · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBreast cancer (BC) screening enables early detection of BC, which may lead to improved quality of life (QoL). We aim to compare QoL between women with a screen-detected and clinically detected BC in the Netherlands.
methodsWe used data from the 'Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaluation' (UMBRELLA) between October 2013 and March 2022. Patients were categorized as screen-detected or clinically detected. We analysed three questionnaires, namely EORTC QLQ C-30, BR23, and HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) completed by BC patients shortly after diagnosis (T1) and one-year after treatment (T2). Independent t-tests were performed to compare QoL average differences between the two groups. Bonferroni-corrected p-value significance threshold of 0.00057 was used. The magnitude of differences was calculated using Cohen's d. The clinical relevance of QLQ-C30 differences was assessed based on interpretation guideline of EORTC-QLQ-C30 results.
resultsAfter applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, there were 691 women with screen-detected BC and 480 with clinically detected BC. Generally, screen-detected BC patients reported a better QoL. At T1, their average QLQ-C30 summary score was higher (86.1) than clinically detected BC patients (83.0) (p < 0.0001). Cohen's d for all items ranged between 0.00 and 0.39. A few QLQ-C30 score differences were clinically relevant, indicating better outcomes in emotional functioning, general health, constipation, and fatigue for women with screen-detected BC.
conclusionsIn the Netherlands, women with screen-detected BC reported statistically significant and better QoL than women with clinically detected BC. However, clinical relevance of the differences is limited.
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.