ArticlePloS one2026
Influence of follow-up, screening age, interval, and compliance on overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): A modelling study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Overdiagnosis estimates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) vary from 20-91%, which complicates screening communication and optimization. The aim was to quantify the influence of follow-up time and screening setting on overdiagnosis of DCIS. The fully validated micro-simulation Markov model for DCIS (SimDCIS) was used to estimate DCIS overdiagnosis in different screening settings with varying follow-up. DCIS overdiagnosis was defined as the number of diagnosed DCIS (screen-, clinically detected, or progressed to invasive breast cancer) in screening that would not have been diagnosed without screening. Outcomes were presented as overdiagnosed proportion and rate. The base cohort was screened biennially from age 50-74 with 76% compliance and 25 years (y) follow-up and compared to the non-screened cohort. Follow-up was varied from 2-25y, screening start 40-74y, screening interval 1-5y and compliance 50-100%. DCIS overdiagnosis was estimated at 20% of all diagnosed DCIS and 38.1 overdiagnosed DCIS per 100,000 women screened biennially from age 50-74 at 76% compliance and 25y follow-up. The proportion of overdiagnosed DCIS increased with shorter follow-up (27% at 2y to 20% at 25y), older screening start age (1% at 40y to 15% at 74y), decreased screening interval (23% at 1y to 12% at 5y), and increased compliance (16% at half to 20% at full participation). In conclusion, reliable DCIS overdiagnosis estimates require attention to screening setting and ≥20 years follow-up. Older women (74y) showed up to seven times more overdiagnosis at initial screening than younger women (50y). Improved estimates can provide guidance in screening communication and optimization.
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.