ArticleBMJ oncology2023
Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening revisited: a large, retrospective cross-sectional study quantifying treatment intensity in women with screen-detected versus non-screen-detected cancer in Australia and New Zealand.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival Benefits and Less Intensive Treatment for Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer Diagnosed While Participating in Population-Based Screening.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Current pattern of care in radiation therapy for DCIS in Australia and New Zealand - where are we heading?Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Article
- Another piece in the overdiagnosis jigsaw puzzle.BMJ oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Non-mortality benefits of breast cancer screening are rarely considered in assessments of benefits versus harms. This study aims to estimate the rate of overdiagnosis in women with screen-detected breast cancer (SDBC) by allocating cases to either possibly overdiagnosed (POD) or not overdiagnosed categories and to compare treatment recommendations for surgery and adjuvant treatments by category, age at diagnosis and cancer stage. Methods and analysis: Retrospective secondary analysis of 10 191 women diagnosed with breast cancer in Australia and New Zealand in 2018. Treatment recommendations for 5226 women with SDBC and 4965 women with non-SDBC (NSDBC) were collated and analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate proportions and risk ratios (RRs). Results: The POD rate was 15.8%. Screening detected 66.3% of stage 0 tumours, 59% of stage 1, 40% of stage 2 and 27.5% of stage 3 tumours. Women with SDBC were less likely than their NSDBC counterparts to receive chemotherapy (RR 0.60 Aus/0.53 NZ), immunotherapy (mostly human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor therapy) (RR 0.58 Aus/0.82 NZ), mastectomy (RR 0.55 Aus/0.63 NZ) and axillary lymph node dissection (RR 0.49 Aus/0.52 NZ), or to require both mastectomy and radiotherapy (RR 0.41 Aus/0.34 NZ). Less than 1% of POD women were recommended chemotherapy, 9.5% radiotherapy, 6.4% endocrine therapy, 2.2% mastectomy and 0.5% axillary lymph node dissection. Conclusions: Women with SDBCs required less intensive treatment; rates of possible overtreatment of SDBCs are relatively low and may be minimised through multidisciplinary discussion and shared decision-making. Reduced treatment intensity should be considered when balancing the potential benefits and harms of 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.