ArticleHealth reports2025
Comparing Canada's OncoSim-Breast model with the United States' Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer models.
Article in Health reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing the OncoSim-Breast model using Canadian breast density information.Health reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The OncoSim-Breast model, developed by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and Statistics Canada, represents breast cancer-related events in the Canadian female population. This study aimed to compare OncoSim-Breast with recent results from the United States' National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer models. The primary focus was on the impact of extending breast cancer screening to women aged 40 to 49. Data and methods: The OncoSim-Breast model used Canadian demographics, competing mortality, and test performance, while the CISNET models used comparable United States data to analyze 10 different mammography screening scenarios. Lifetime outcomes were calculated for a cohort of 40-year-old women born in 1980, assuming perfect adherence to digital mammography screening. OncoSim-Breast's estimates were compared with the median and range of estimates from the five CISNET models. The primary outcomes were breast cancer deaths averted and life years gained per 1,000 40-year-old women. Results: OncoSim-Breast projected that starting screening at age 40 would lead to 1.7 breast cancer deaths averted and 53 life years gained per 1,000 women, compared with starting screening at age 50. CISNET models projected a median of 1.3 breast cancer deaths averted (range 0.8 to 3.2) and 43 life years gained (range 31 to 103) per 1,000 women for the same scenario. Secondary outcomes estimated by OncoSim-Breast and CISNET models were similarly consistent and comparable. Interpretation: This study demonstrates that OncoSim-Breast's estimates of the impact of starting breast cancer screening earlier align with those from CISNET models.
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.