ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Cause-specific mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: Associations with screening and socio-economic status.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. 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.
- Cause-specific mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: Associations with screening and socio-economic status.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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The lower all-cause mortality in women with Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared with the general population has been hypothesized to be due to a "healthy-user effect," but this has not been studied in large cohorts. In a population-based, retrospective cohort study comprising 18,942 women with primary DCIS between 1999 and 2015 in the Netherlands, the cumulative incidence of breast cancer death (BCD) was estimated using death by other cause as a competing risk. The cause-specific mortality risk of women with DCIS was compared with that of the Dutch female population. Multivariable competing risk regression was used to quantify the effects of the method of detection and socio-economic status (SES). With 289 BCDs, the 10-year cumulative incidence of BCD was 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1-1.5). Compared to the Dutch female population, women with DCIS had a 2.1-times higher risk of BCD, but a 7% lower risk of all-cause mortality. Women with screen-detected DCIS had lower risks of BCD compared to women with non-screen-detected DCIS (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]:0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77), as did women with high SES versus low SES (sHR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.97) in the first 4 years of follow-up, adjusted for age and year at diagnosis, and DCIS characteristics. In conclusion, overall mortality in women with DCIS is not higher compared to the Dutch female population, though death due to invasive breast cancer is increased. Within all women with DCIS, those with screen-detected DCIS or high SES had lower BCD and all-cause mortality, suggesting a healthy-user effect.
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.