Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18665169›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2008

The occurrence of invasive cancers following a diagnosis of breast carcinoma in situ.

D Robinson, L Holmberg, H Møller

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D RobinsonThames Cancer Registry, Division of Cancer Studies, King's College London, 1st Floor Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London SE1 3QD, UK. dave.robinson@kcl.ac.uk
L Holmberg
H Møller
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Approximately 1 in every 600 women attending breast-screening programmes in the United Kingdom is diagnosed with breast carcinoma in situ (BCIS). However, there is little information on the occurrence of subsequent cancers (other than second breast cancers) in these women. We investigated the occurrence of invasive cancers in 12,836 women diagnosed with BCIS in southeast England between 1971 and 2003, using data from the Thames Cancer Registry. A greater than expected number of subsequent cancers was found for two sites: breast (standardised incidence ratio (SIR) 1.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.79-2.14) and corpus uteri (SIR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11-1.78). For subsequent ipsilateral breast cancer in those treated with breast conservation, the excess was independent of the time since diagnosis of BCIS, whereas for subsequent contralateral breast cancer, there was a steady decline in excess over time. For subsequent uterine cancer, the excess became statistically significant only at >5 years after BCIS diagnosis, consistent with a treatment effect. This was further supported by Cox regression analysis: the risk of subsequent uterine cancer was significantly increased in women receiving hormonal therapy compared with those not receiving it, with a hazard ratio of 2.97 (95% CI 1.84-4.80).

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCarcinoma, LobularEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasms, Second PrimaryPopulation SurveillanceRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID18665169
PMCPMC2527835
OpenAlexW2052066020

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.