Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27318854›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2016

Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ according to breast cancer subtypes: a population-based cohort study.

Shusma C Doebar, Esther C van den Broek, Linetta B Koppert, Agnes Jager, Margreet H A Baaijens, Inge-Marie A M Obdeijn, Carolien H M van Deurzen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Immune response and stromal changes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast are subtype dependent.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Shusma C DoebarDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.doebar@erasmusmc.nl.
Esther C van den BroekStichting Palga, Randhoeve 231A, 3995 GA, Houten, The Netherlands.
Linetta B KoppertDepartment of Oncological Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 5201, 3008 AE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Agnes JagerDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 5201, 3008 AE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Margreet H A BaaijensDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 5201, 3008 AE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Inge-Marie A M ObdeijnDepartment of Radiology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 5201, 3008 AE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Carolien H M van DeurzenDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a precursor of invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). The DCIS component is often more extensive than the invasive component, which affects local control. The aim of our study was to analyze features of DCIS within different IBC subtypes, which may contribute to the optimization of personalized approaches for patients with IBC. Patients with IBC reported according to the synoptic reporting module in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2015 were included. Data extraction included characteristics of the invasive component and, if present, several features of the DCIS component. Resection margin status analyses were restricted to patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Differences between subtypes were tested by a Chi-square test, spearman's Rho test or a one-way ANOVA test. Overall, 36.937 cases of IBC were included. About half of the IBCs (n = 16.014; 43.4 %) were associated with DCIS. Her2+ IBC (irrespective of ER status) was associated with a higher prevalence of adjacent DCIS, a larger extent of DCIS and a higher rate of irradicality of the DCIS component as compared to ER+/Her2- and triple-negative subtypes (P < 0.0001 for all variables). The prevalence of DCIS in triple-negative IBC on the other hand was lowest. In this large population-based cohort study, we showed significant differences between the prevalence and extent of DCIS according to IBC subtypes, which is also reflected in the resection margin status in patients treated with BCS. Our data provide important information regarding the optimization of local therapy according to IBC subtypes.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCohort StudiesErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMargins of ExcisionMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedNetherlandsPrevalenceReceptors, EstrogenERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenBreast cancer subtypesDuctal carcinoma in situPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID27318854
PMCPMC4937080
OpenAlexW2422232183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.