Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25403959›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in eukaryotic gene expression2014

Ductal carcinoma in situ: a brief review of treatment variation and impacts on patients and society.

Christine Vatovec, Mujde Z Erten, Jane Kolodinsky, Phil Brown, Marie Wood, Ted James, Brian L Sprague

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in eukaryotic gene expression, 2014. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Regulatory T Cells Control the Switch FromFrontiers in immunology · 2019
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christine VatovecRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources & College of Medicine, Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
Mujde Z ErtenDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Global Health Economics Unit of the Vermont Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
Jane KolodinskyDepartment of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
Phil BrownDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, Department of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Marie WoodDepartment of Medicine, College of Medicine, Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
Ted JamesDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
Brian L SpragueDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
University of Vermont · USNortheastern University · US

Funding

Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nearly 20% of all breast cancer cases are ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), with over 60,000 cases diagnosed each year. Many of these cases would never cause clinical symptoms or threaten the life of the woman; however, it is currently impossible to distinguish which lesions will progress to invasive disease from those that will not. DCIS is generally associated with an excellent prognosis regardless of the treatment pathway, but there is variation in treatment aggressiveness that seems to exceed the medical uncertainty associated with DCIS management. Therefore, it would seem that a significant proportion of women with DCIS receive more extensive treatment than is needed. This overtreatment of DCIS is a growing concern among the breast cancer community and has implications for both the patient (via adverse treatment-related effects, as well as out-of-pocket costs) and society (via economic costs and the public health and environmental harm resulting from health care delivery). This article discusses DCIS treatment pathways and their implications for patients and society and calls for further research to examine the factors that are leading to such wide variation in treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHealth Care CostsHumans

Identifiers

PMID25403959
PMCPMC4372113
OpenAlexW2053187450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.