ArticleCancer2012
Pathologic characteristics of second breast cancers after breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ.
Article in Cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- DEGRO practical guidelines: radiotherapy of breast cancer II: radiotherapy of non-invasive neoplasia of the breast.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2014Guideline
- Article
- Patient Prognostic Score and Associations With Survival Improvement Offered by Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Longitudinal Cohort Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2016Article
- Genetic predisposition to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2016Article
- Characteristics of second breast events among women treated with breast-conserving surgery for DCIS in the community.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2016Article
- Molecular Markers as Prognostic Factors in DCIS and Small Invasive Breast Cancers.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe number of women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is increasing. Although many eventually develop a second breast cancer (SBC), little is known about the characteristics of SBCs. The authors described the characteristics of SBC and examined associations between the pathologic features of SBC and index DCIS cases.
methodsWomen were identified in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Outcomes Database who were diagnosed with DCIS from 1997 to 2008 and underwent lumpectomy and who subsequently developed SBC (including DCIS or invasive disease that occurred in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast). The Fisher exact test and the Spearman test were used to examine associations between the pathologic characteristics of SBC and index DCIS cases.
resultsAmong 2636 women who underwent lumpectomy for DCIS, 150 (5.7%) experienced an SBC after a median of 55.5 months of follow-up. Of these 150 women, 105 (70%) received adjuvant radiotherapy, and 50 (33.3%) received tamoxifen for their index DCIS. SBCs were ipsilateral in 54.7% of women and invasive in 50.7% of women. Among the index DCIS cases, 60.6% were estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, and 54% were high grade, whereas 77.5% of SBCs were ER-positive, and 48.2% were high grade. Tumor grade (P = .003) and ER status (P = .02) were associated significantly between index DCIS and SBC, whereas tumor size was not (P = .87).
conclusionsAfter breast conservation for DCIS, SBC in either breast exhibited pathologic characteristics similar to the index DCIS, suggesting that women with DCIS may be at risk for developing subsequent breast cancers of a similar phenotype.
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.