ArticleBritish journal of cancer2005
Risk of subsequent invasive breast carcinoma after in situ breast carcinoma in a population covered by national mammographic screening.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-omic profiling of simultaneous ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Article
- Risk for Invasive Cancers in Women With Breast CancerFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Relationship Between Anthropometric Factors and Risk of Second Breast Cancer Among Women With a History of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2018Article
- The impact of in situ breast cancer and family history on risk of subsequent breast cancer events and mortality - a population-based study from Sweden.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2016Article
- Intentions for bilateral mastectomy among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.Journal of surgical oncology · 2013Article
- Population-Based Effects of Mammography Screening in Bavaria on the Distribution of TNM-T Categories with Respect to Different Histological Subgroups.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2012Article
- 'Second primary breast cancers following an initial diagnosis of cancer in one breast: a methodological issue'.British journal of cancer · 2008Article
- The occurrence of invasive cancers following a diagnosis of breast carcinoma in situ.British journal of cancer · 2008Article
- Increased risk of second malignancies after in situ breast carcinoma in a population-based registry.British journal of cancer · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sweden was the first country to establish a nationwide breast cancer screening service. We used the Swedish Family-Cancer Database to evaluate the risk of invasive carcinoma after in situ carcinoma of the breast. Risk estimates for contralateral and ipsilateral invasive malignancies following age and histology specific in situ breast carcinomas were calculated using Poisson's regression analysis. The agreement between concordant and discordant morphologies of invasive and in situ breast cancer was measured using the kappa statistic. Women with in situ breast cancer showed a relative risk of 2.03 for contralateral and 3.94 for ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. The risk was higher for in situ carcinomas diagnosed before the age of 50 years and after lobular in situ breast cancers. A comparison of the risks during the past decades suggested that the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer has increased in Sweden but that of contralateral breast cancer has remained unchanged. In situ and the subsequent invasive breast cancers did not seem to share their morphologies.
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.