ArticleCancer2012
Radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a decision analysis.
Article in Cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization and treatment of local recurrence following breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ.Annals of surgical oncology · 2014Article
- Article
- Elevated expression of LSD1 (Lysine-specific demethylase 1) during tumour progression from pre-invasive to invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.BMC clinical pathology · 2012Article
- Clinical outcomes of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with partial mastectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy.Yonsei medical journal · 2012Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of adding radiation therapy after excision of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is widely debated. Randomized clinical trials are underpowered to delineate long-term outcomes after radiation.
methodsThe authors of this report constructed a Markov decision model to simulate the clinical course of DCIS in a woman aged 60 years who received treatment with either of 2 breast-conserving strategies: excision alone or excision plus radiation therapy. Sensitivity analyses were used to study the influence of risk of local recurrence, likelihood of invasive disease at recurrence, surgical choice at recurrence, and patient age at diagnosis on treatment outcomes.
resultsThe addition of radiation therapy was associated with slight improvements in invasive disease-free and overall survival. However, radiation therapy decreased the chance of having both breasts intact over a patient's lifetime. Radiation therapy improved survival by 2.1 months for women who were diagnosed with DCIS at age 60 years but decreased the chance of having both breasts by 8.6% relative to excision alone. The differences in outcomes between the treatment strategies became smaller with increasing age at diagnosis. Sensitivity analyses revealed a greater benefit for radiation with an increased likelihood of invasive recurrence. The decrement in breast preservation with radiation therapy was mitigated by an increased likelihood of mastectomy at the time of recurrence or new breast cancer diagnosis.
conclusionsThe current analysis quantified the benefits of radiation after excision of DCIS but also revealed that radiation therapy may increase the likelihood of eventual mastectomy. Therefore, the authors concluded that patient age and preferences should be considered when making the decision to add or forgo radiation for DCIS.
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.