Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29439886›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2018

Patient Experiences and Clinician Views on the Role of Radiation Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Dean A Shumway, Chandler M McLeod, Monica Morrow, Yun Li, Allison W Kurian, Aaron Sabolch, Ann S Hamilton, Kevin C Ward, Steven J Katz, Sarah T Hawley and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality of life issues in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Overcoming Barriers in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Management: From Overtreatment to Optimal Treatment.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Article
  4. Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Treatment for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: an update for the pathologist in the era of individualized risk assessment and tailored therapies.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019
    Review
  7. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Dean A ShumwayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Chandler M McLeodDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Monica MorrowBreast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Yun LiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Allison W KurianDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Aaron SabolchDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ann S HamiltonDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Kevin C WardDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Steven J KatzDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Sarah T HawleyDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reshma JagsiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rjagsi@med.umich.edu.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USEmory University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USStanford University · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI MYLES G COCKBURN · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
The Challenge of Individualizing Treatments for Patients with Breast CancerP01CA163233 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HOFER, TIMOTHY P. · 2012 to 2016
$13.4M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003862NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000034CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000140CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA163233NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate patient experiences with decisions regarding radiation therapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and to assess clinician views on the role of RT for DCIS with favorable features in the present era. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A sample of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer from the population-based Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were sent surveys approximately 2 months after undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS), with a 70% response rate. The analytic sample was limited to 538 respondents with unilateral DCIS. We also surveyed 761 surgeons and radiation oncologists treating breast cancer in those regions, of whom, 539 responded (71%).

resultsAfter BCS, 23% of patients omitted RT, with twice the rate of omission in Los Angeles County relative to Georgia (31% vs 16%; P < .001). The most common reasons for omitting RT were advice from a clinician that it was not needed (62%) and concern about side effects (24%). Cost and transportation were not reported as influential considerations. After covariate adjustment, low- and intermediate-grade disease (odds ratio [OR] 5.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-12; and OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7-6.1, respectively) and Los Angeles County SEER site (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.2) were significantly associated with greater RT omission. Of the responding clinicians, 62% would discuss RT omission for a patient with DCIS with favorable features. Clinicians in Los Angeles County were more likely to discuss RT omission than were those in Georgia (67% vs 56%; P = .01). Approximately one third of clinicians would obtain the Oncotype DX DCIS score.

conclusionsThe heterogeneity in RT omission after BCS for DCIS continues to be substantial, with systematic differences in provider opinions across the 2 regions we studied. Enhanced precision of recurrence estimates, guidance from professional organizations, and better communication are needed to improve the consistency of treatment in this controversial area.

Indexed as

Health Care SurveysAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingConfidence IntervalsFemaleGeorgiaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLos AngelesMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedOdds RatioRadiation OncologistsRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID29439886
PMCPMC8603836
OpenAlexW2783617098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.