ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating breast cancer screening performance without registries using medico-administrative data.
Article in Scientific 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.
- The plasma nanoDSF denaturation profiles predict the presence of breast cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The French Breast Cancer Screening Program (DOCS) was created to detect early Breast Cancer (BC). Key performance indicators for digital mammography include sensitivity (SE), positive predictive value (PPV), interval cancer rate (ICR) and cancer detection rate (CDR). Calculating these metrics requires a linkage between screening data and BC registries; however, registries are scarce in France and often inaccessible for research. We therefore used medico-administrative data as an alternative. We linked regional screening data to the French National Health Data System (SNDS) between 2011 and 2020. Women were followed for 24 months post-screening. Screen-detected cancers and those identified with the SNDS were included. Performance metrics were calculated based on these linked datasets. A total of 252,786 screening exams were analyzed, covering 29,661-33,447 screenings annually, with a mean age of 61 years. SE was 77.9% (95% CI 76.3-79.3), indicating that approximately four in five cancers were detected through mammography. PPV was 19.8% (95% CI 19-20.5), meaning that one in five women with a positive screening test were confirmed with cancer within 24 months. CDR was 10.9 per 1000 exams (95% CI 10.5-11.3), equating to one detected case per 100 screenings. ICR was 2.4 per 1000 exams (95% CI 2.2-2.6), meaning that more than two interval cancers were detected per 1000 screenings. This identification approach using medico-administrative data offers a reproducible alternative for regions where cancer registries are unavailable. A future study applying this methodology in a registry-covered region could further validate the effectiveness of linking screenings to SNDS data for systematic cancer identification.
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.