ArticleRadiology and oncology2016
Screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ found on stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy of suspicious microcalcifications without mass: radiological-histological correlation.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicopathological and prognostic value of calcification morphology descriptors in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
- Ductal Breast Carcinoma In Situ: Mammographic Features and Its Relation to Prognosis and Tumour Biology in a Population Based Cohort.International journal of breast cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommonly identified on screening mammography breast microcalcifications are the predominant manifestation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between clinico-radiological features and histological findings in patients with screen-detected DCIS. PATIENTS AND
methodsConsecutive 127 patients with pure DCIS found on stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy of screen-detected suspicious microcalcifications without mass entered the study. Patient age, type and distribution of microcalcifications, DCIS nuclear grade (NG) and the presence of comedonecrosis were investigated. Association between parameters was statistically analysed with P < 0.05 as a significance level. Results. Powdery microcalcifications were most often clustered while regional were most common of casting-type (P < 0.001). High, intermediate and low NG of DCIS was significantly related to casting-type, crushed stone-like and powdery microcalcifications, respectively (P < 0.01). Low and intermediate NG DCIS were the most common in clustered and grouped microcalcifications while high NG DCIS was the most often when regional distribution was observed (P < 0.05). Comedonecrosis was significantly more common in high NG DCIS (P < 0.01). The association between comedonecrosis and type of microcalcifications was not significant, but with their distribution was close to the significance level (P = 0.07). Patient age was not significantly related to imaging or histological findings.
conclusionsThe association between pattern of mammographic microcalcifications and histological findings related to more aggressive disease can be helpful in optimal surgery planning in patients with screen-detected DCIS, regarding the extent of breast intervention and consideration of synchronous sentinel node biopsy.
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.