ArticlePloS one2017
Risk of second breast cancers after lobular carcinoma in situ according to hormone receptor status.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Atypia detected during breast screening and subsequent development of cancer: observational analysis of the Sloane atypia prospective cohort in England.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Observational
- Article
- Prognostic Significance of Lobular Carcinoma In-Situ (LCIS) Diagnosed Alongside Invasive Breast Cancer.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2022Article
- Race, ethnicity and risk of second primary contralateral breast cancer in the United States.International journal of cancer · 2021Article
- Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough subsequent breast cancer risk after primary lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) has been studied intensively, whether the risk of second breast cancer after first LCIS varies with hormone receptor (HR) status of primary tumor remains unclear.
methodsWe identified 10,304 women with primary pure unilateral LCIS between 1998 and 2007 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) 18 Registries. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5 or 10-year probabilities of second ipsilateral breast cancers (IBCs) and contralateral breast cancers (CBCs) were calculated. Multivariable Cox proportional model was performed to identify impact of HR status of primary LCIS, and other demographic, clinicopathologic or treatment characteristics on risk of second IBCs or CBCs.
resultsOf the 10,304 women with primary LCIS included in this study, 9949 (96.5%) patients had HR+ tumors, and 355 (3.5%) had HR- tumors. Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that although there was no difference in risk of total second IBCs between women with HR+ and HR- LCIS (P = 0.152), patients with HR+ LCIS had a statistically lower risk of second invasive IBCs compared to those with HR- LCIS (hazard ratio 0.356, 95% CI 0.141-0.899, P = 0.029). Women with primary HR+ LCIS had lower risks of both second total and invasive CBCs compared to those with HR- LCIS (total CBCs: hazard ratio 0.340, 95% CI 0.228-0.509, P<0.001; invasive CBCs: hazard ratio 0.172, 95% CI 0.108-0.274, P<0.001). Additionally, black women had a 2-fold risk of developing subsequent total IBCs than white women (P = 0.028).
conclusionsThis population-based study demonstrated that the risk of second breast cancers was significantly increased in women with HR- first LCIS compared to those with HR+ LCIS. These findings warrant intensive surveillance for second breast cancers in HR- LCIS survivors.
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.