ArticleBMC cancer2008
Identification of biomarkers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with microinvasion.
Article in BMC cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ki-67-Playing a key role in breast cancer but difficult to apply precisely in the real world.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Apoptosis-related factors are relevant to progression of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- A clinical radiomics nomogram preoperatively to predict ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion in women with biopsy-confirmed ductal carcinoma in situ: a preliminary study.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Nucleocytoplasmic transport of active HER2 causes fractional escape from the DCIS-like state.Nature communications · 2023Article
- A review of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Review
- Influence of Paclitaxel and Doxorubicin Therapy of ßIII-Tubulin, Carbonic Anhydrase IX, and Survivin in Chemically Induced Breast Cancer in Female Rat.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Molecular alterations differentiate microinvasive carcinoma from ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast carcinoma: retrospective analysis of a large single-center series.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2021Article
- Article
- Breast Microinvasive Carcinoma With Different Morphologies: Analysis of Clinicopathologic Features of 121 Cases.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2020Article
- Imaging features that distinguish pure ductal carcinomaMolecular and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of survivin immunoexpression in the differentiation of high- and low-grade breast ductal carcinoma in situ.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2018Article
- Prognostic value of ki-67 in breast carcinoma: tissue microarray method versus whole section analysis- potentials and pitfalls.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2015Article
- Different distribution of breast ductal carcinoma in situ, ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion, and invasion breast cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2012Article
- Biological Markers in DCIS and Risk of Breast Recurrence: A Systematic Review.Journal of Cancer · 2011Article
- Progression of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ from the Pathological Perspective.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010Article
- Tight junctions: a barrier to the initiation and progression of breast cancer?Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWidespread use of mammography in breast cancer screening has led to the identification of increasing numbers of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). DCIS of the breast with an area of focal invasion 1 mm or less in diameter is defined as DCIS with microinvasion, DCIS-Mi. Identification of biological differences between DCIS and DCIS-Mi may aid in understanding of the nature and causes of the progression of DCIS to invasiveness.
methodsIn this study, using resected breast cancer tissues, we compared pure DCIS (52 cases) and DCIS-Mi (28 cases) with regard to pathological findings of intraductal lesions, biological factors, apoptosis-related protein expression, and proliferative capacity through the use of immunohistochemistry and the TdT-mediated dUTP-biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL) method.
resultsThere were no differences in biological factors between DCIS and DCIS-Mi, with respect to levels of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2. The frequency of necrosis and positive expression ratio of survivin and Bax were significantly higher in DCIS-Mi than in DCIS. In addition, apoptotic index, Ki-67 index, and positive Bcl-2 immunolabeling tended to be higher in DCIS-Mi than in DCIS. Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of necrosis and positive survivin expression were independent factors associated with invasion.
conclusionCompared with DCIS, DCIS-Mi is characterized by a slightly elevated cell proliferation capacity and enhanced apoptosis within the intraductal lesion, both of which are thought to promote the formation of cell necrotic foci. Furthermore, the differential expression of survivin may serve in deciding the response to therapy and may have some prognostic significance.
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.