ArticleCancer medicine2018
Trends and clinicopathological predictors of axillary evaluation in ductal carcinoma in situ patients treated with breast-conserving therapy.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2018. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of histological grading in ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Redefining Criteria to Ensure Adequate Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy With Dual Tracer for Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
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
The aim of this study was to investigate the trends of axillary lymph node evaluation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and to identify the clinicopathological predictors of axillary evaluation. DCIS patients treated with BCT in 2006-2015 at our institute were retrospectively included in the analysis. Patients were categorized into three groups: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and non-evaluation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors that predicted axillary evaluation. A total of 315 patients were identified, among whom 135 underwent SLNB, and 15 underwent ALND. The proportion of patients who underwent axillary evaluation increased from 33.0% in 2006-2010 to 53.8% in 2011-2015 (P < 0.001), however, no patients had lymph node metastasis based on final pathology. In multivariate analysis, high-grade tumor favored axillary evaluation (OR = 4.376, 95% CI:1.410-13.586, P = 0.011); while excision biopsy favored no axillary evaluation compared with other biopsy methods (OR = 0.418, 95% CI: 0.192-0.909, P = 0.028). Subgroup analysis of patients treated in 2011-2015 revealed that high-grade tumor (OR = 5.898, 95% CI: 1.626-21.390, P = 0.007) and palpable breast lump (OR = 2.497, 95% CI: 1.037-6.011, P = 0.041) were independent predictors of axillary lymph node evaluation. Despite the significant decrease in ALND and a concerning overuse of SLNB, we identified no axillary lymph node metastasis, which justified omitting axillary evaluation in these patients. High-grade tumor, palpable lump, and biopsy method were independent predictors of axillary evaluations. Excision biopsy of suspicious DCIS lesions may potentially preclude the invasive component of the disease and help to avoid axillary surgery.
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.