ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2013
Immunohistochemical profile of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Factors Associated with Invasion in Extensive DCIS of the Breast Treated by Mastectomy: The Cinnamome Prospective Multicenter Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2015Trial
- Subtypes of high-grade breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): incidence and potential clinical impact.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: an update for the pathologist in the era of individualized risk assessment and tailored therapies.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019Review
- Co-Expression of p16, Ki67 and COX-2 Is Associated with Basal Phenotype in High-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast.The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society · 2015Article
- Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between histopathological features and age of patients.Diagnostic pathology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the frequency of the immunohistochemical profiles of a series of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
methodsOne hundred and twenty-one cases of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ, pure or associated with invasive mammary carcinoma, were identified from 2003 to 2008 and examined with immunohistochemistry for estrogen receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, cytokeratin 5, and epidermal growth factor receptor. The tumors were placed into five subgroups: luminal A, luminal B, HER2, basal-like, and "not classified".
resultsThe frequencies of the immunophenotypes of pure ductal carcinoma in situ were the following: luminal A (24/42 cases; 57.1%), luminal B (05/42 cases; 11.9%), HER2 (07/42 cases; 16.7%), basal-like phenotype (00/42 cases; 0%), and "not classified" (06/42 cases; 14.3%). The immunophenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ associated with invasive carcinoma were the following: luminal A (46/79 cases; 58.2%), luminal B (10/79 cases; 12.7%), HER2 (06/79 cases; 7.6%), basal-like (06/79 cases; 7.6%), and "not classified" (11/79 cases; 13.9%). There was no significant difference in the immunophenotype frequencies between pure ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ associated with invasive carcinoma (p>0.05). High agreement was observed in immunophenotypes between both components (kappa=0.867).
conclusionThe most common immunophenotype of pure ductal carcinoma in situ was luminal A, followed by HER2. The basal-like phenotype was observed only in ductal carcinoma in situ associated with invasive carcinoma, which had 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.