ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Survival Benefits and Less Intensive Treatment for Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer Diagnosed While Participating in Population-Based Screening.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe authors previously reported that within a patient cohort from Victoria, Australia, women who had early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) diagnosed while participating in screening [active screeners (AS), comprising both screen-detected and interval cancers] receive less intensive treatment than those not recently screened (NRS). This study reports mortality and subsequent cancer events for that cohort.
methodsFollow-up data were collected for 766 (97.1%) of the 789 women in the original cohort (612 [79.9%] AS and 154 [20.1%] NRS), with a median follow-up time of 11.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 9.8-13.8 years). Mortality and subsequent cancer diagnosis data were derived from linkage with the Victorian Cancer Registry. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups, with sensitivity analyses for potential overdiagnosis and lead time bias.
resultsThe 10-years BCSS was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.2-96.8%) for AS versus 86.4% (95% CI 79.7-91.0%) for NRS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.28; 95% CI 0.17-0.48; p < 0.001). A survival benefit persisted after adjustment for estimated overdiagnosis (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.21-0.66; p = 0.001) and lead time bias (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.19-0.58; p < 0.001). The 10-year OS also was superior for AS, at 90.6% (95% CI 87.9-92.7%) compared with 82.5% (95% CI 75.4-87.8%) for NRS (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36-0.79; p = 0.002). DISCUSSION: Patients who have ESBC diagnosed while participating in screening experience improved BCSS and OS while receiving less intensive treatment. These findings are robust to adjustment for potential overdiagnosis and lead time bias. As treatment for ESBC becomes more tailored, with emerging opportunities for reduced treatment intensity, the benefits of screening are likely to improve further.
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.