ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2015
Accelerated partial breast irradiation through brachytherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: factors influencing utilization and risks of second breast tumors.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accelerated partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast radiation therapy: a breast cancer cohort study measuring change in radiation side-effects severity and quality of life.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine influencing factors and outcomes of accelerated partial breast irradiation through brachytherapy (APBIb) versus whole breast irradiation (WBI) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). From the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program of the US National Cancer Institute, we identified 40,749 women who were diagnosed with first primary DCIS between 2002 and 2011 and treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy. A multi-level logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate odds ratios of APBIb use. Hazard ratios (HRs) of developing ipsilateral breast tumors (IBTs) and contralateral breast tumors (CBTs) were analyzed in 1962 patients with APBIb and 7203 propensity score-matched patients with WBI, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Overall, 2212 (4.5 %) of 40,749 women (the whole cohort) received APBIb. Factors associated with the increased use of APBIb included older age, non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity, smaller tumor size, hormone receptor positivity, comedo subtypes, and urban residence. During the 46-month follow-up, 74 (0.8 %) and 131 (1.4 %) of 9165 propensity score-matched patients developed IBTs and CBTs, respectively. Compared with WBI, APBIb was associated with a significantly increased risk of IBTs (HR 1.74; 95 % CI 1.06-2.85) but not CBTs (OR 0.91; 95 % CI 0.59-1.41). This population-based study suggests that APBIb use for DCIS was influenced by patient and tumor characteristics as well as urbanization of residence. We observed a moderately increased IBT risk associated with APBIb versus WBI, suggesting that APBIb should be used with caution for DCIS before data from randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-ups are available.
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.