Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27160733›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2016

The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening.

P A van Luijt, E A M Heijnsdijk, J Fracheboud, L I H Overbeek, M J M Broeders, J Wesseling, G J den Heeten, H J de Koning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Microenvironment in DCIS and Its Role in Disease Progression.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

P A van LuijtDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. p.vanluijt@erasmusmc.nl.
E A M HeijnsdijkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J FracheboudDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
L I H OverbeekPALGA, the nationwide network and registry of histopathology and cytopathology in the Netherlands, Randhoeve 225 A, 3995 GA, Houten, The Netherlands.
M J M BroedersNational Evaluation Team for Breast cancer screening in the Netherlands (NETB), Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J WesselingDivisions of Diagnostic Oncology and Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G J den HeetenNational Evaluation Team for Breast cancer screening in the Netherlands (NETB), Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
H J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has rapidly increased over time. The malignant potential of DCIS is dependent on its differentiation grade.

methodsOur aim is to determine the distribution of different grades of DCIS among women screened in the mass screening programme, and women not screened in the mass screening programme, and to estimate the amount of overdiagnosis by grade of DCIS. We retrospectively included a population-based sample of 4232 women with a diagnosis of DCIS in the years 2007-2009 from the Nationwide network and registry of histopathology and cytopathology in the Netherlands. Excluded were women with concurrent invasive breast cancer, lobular carcinoma in situ and no DCIS, women recently treated for invasive breast cancer, no grade mentioned in the record, inconclusive record on invasion, and prevalent DCIS. The screening status was obtained via the screening organisations. The distribution of grades was incorporated in the well-established and validated microsimulation model MISCAN.

resultsOverall, 17.7 % of DCIS were low grade, 31.4 % intermediate grade, and 50.9 % high grade. This distribution did not differ by screening status, but did vary by age. Older women were more likely to have low-grade DCIS than younger women. Overdiagnosis as a proportion of all cancers in women of the screening age was 61 % for low-grade, 57 % for intermediate-grade, 45 % for high-grade DCIS. For women age 50-60 years with a high-grade DCIS this overdiagnosis rate was 21-29 %, compared to 50-66 % in women age 60-75 years with high-grade DCIS.

conclusionsAmongst the rapidly increasing numbers of DCIS diagnosed each year is a significant number of overdiagnosed cases. Tailoring treatment to the probability of progression is the next step to preventing overtreatment. The basis of this tailoring could be DCIS grade and age.

Indexed as

Population SurveillanceAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMedical OveruseMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNetherlandsRegistriesBreast cancerDuctal carcinoma in situMISCANOverdiagnosisScreening

Identifiers

PMID27160733
PMCPMC4862233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.