Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42309527›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2026

Use of population-based cancer registry data to evaluate organized breast cancer screening programmes in Europe by mode of detection: a scoping review.

Wendy Kam, Elodie Guillaume, Quentin Rollet, Dafina Petrova, Nicolás Francisco Fernández-Martínez, Koen van Herck, Marià Carulla, Claudia Pla, Francina Saladié, Cristina Miracle and 5 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Wendy KamPublic Health, U1086 'ANTICIPE' INSERM-University of Caen Normandie, Bâtiment Biologie Recherche, CHU de Caen, Caen, France.ORCID 0009-0008-9565-3958
Elodie GuillaumePublic Health, U1086 'ANTICIPE' INSERM-University of Caen Normandie, Bâtiment Biologie Recherche, CHU de Caen, Caen, France.
Quentin RolletPublic Health, U1086 'ANTICIPE' INSERM-University of Caen Normandie, Bâtiment Biologie Recherche, CHU de Caen, Caen, France.
Dafina PetrovaCancer Registry of Granada, Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, Granada, Spain.
Nicolás Francisco Fernández-MartínezEscuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs, Granada, Spain.
Koen van HerckBelgian Cancer Registry, Universiteit Antwerpen, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0717-2406
Marià CarullaDepartment of Epidemiology, Regional Health Council, IMIB-Arrixaca, Murcia University, Murcia, Spain.
Claudia PlaCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Service, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, IISPV, Reus, Spain.
Francina SaladiéCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Service, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, IISPV, Reus, Spain.
Cristina MiracleHospitalet de Llobregat, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Cataluña, España.
Vesna ZadnikSlovenian Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Sonja TomšičSlovenian Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Anne Cowppli-BonyBelgian Cancer Registry, Universiteit Antwerpen, Brussels, Belgium.
Guy LaunoyPublic Health, U1086 'ANTICIPE' INSERM-University of Caen Normandie, Bâtiment Biologie Recherche, CHU de Caen, Caen, France.
Claudine BackesDepartment of Precision Health (DoPH), Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Group (EPICAN), Luxembourg Institute of Health (LIH), Strassen, Luxembourg.

Funding

Cancer National Institute Unit U1086 ANTICIPE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organized breast cancer screening programmes are a cornerstone of cancer control policy across Europe. Population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) play a central role in monitoring screening performance, outcomes, and programme quality. However, the extent and methodological approaches of registry-based evaluations across Europe have not been comprehensively synthesized. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies evaluating organized breast cancer screening programmes in Europe using PBCR data. Studies were identified through systematic database searches and screened using predefined eligibility criteria. Data were extracted on study design, definitions of detection mode, outcome measures, and approaches to bias adjustment. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework guided the methodological analysis. Twenty-six studies were included, mainly from Western and Northern Europe, with most published before 2010. Screen-detected cancers consistently showed lower mortality, better survival, and more favourable tumour characteristics than interval or non-screened cancers. However, reporting of screening indicators was inconsistent. Definitions of detection modes, particularly interval cancers, and approaches to bias adjustment varied widely, limiting comparability. Few studies applied comprehensive bias correction or clearly reported registry-screening data linkage. Registry-based evaluations provide valuable evidence on the impact of breast cancer screening programmes, However, the evidence is limited by methodological heterogeneity and limited analytical standardization, reducing its comparability and policy relevance. Strengthening standardized definitions, improving transparency in analytical approaches, and better integrating programme monitoring with research could enhance the public health value of registry-based screening evaluation.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningRegistriesEuropeFemaleHumansProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID42309527
PMCPMC13275118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.