Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29963116›Full record

ArticleJournal of breast cancer2018

Microinvasive Carcinoma versus Ductal Carcinoma

Milim Kim, Hyun Jeong Kim, Yul Ri Chung, Eunyoung Kang, Eun-Kyu Kim, Se Hyun Kim, Yu Jung Kim, Jee Hyun Kim, In Ah Kim, So Yeon Park

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of breast cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Application of deep learning to identify ductal carcinomaQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Milim KimDepartment of Pathology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Hyun Jeong KimDepartment of Pathology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Yul Ri ChungDepartment of Pathology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Eunyoung KangDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Eun-Kyu KimDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Se Hyun KimDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Yu Jung KimDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Jee Hyun KimDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
In Ah KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
So Yeon ParkDepartment of Pathology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough microinvasive carcinoma is distinct from ductal carcinoma

methodsWe assessed 613 cases of DCIS and microinvasive carcinoma that were consecutively resected from 2003 to 2014 and analyzed clinicopathological variables, expression of standard biomarkers such as the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), p53, and Ki-67, and tumor recurrence.

resultsAmong the 613 cases, 136 (22.2%) were classified as microinvasive carcinoma. Microinvasive carcinoma was significantly associated with DCIS with a large extent, high nuclear grade, necrosis, and comedotype architectural pattern. ER and PR expressions were dominantly observed in pure DCIS, whereas positive HER2 status, p53 overexpression, and high Ki-67 proliferation indices were more frequently observed in microinvasive carcinoma. Lymph node metastasis was found in only four cases of microinvasive carcinoma with multifocal microinvasion. In the multivariate analysis, DCIS with a large extent, comedo-type architectural pattern, and negative ER status were found to be independent predictors of microinvasion. During follow-up, 12 patients had ipsilateral breast recurrence, and no differences in recurrence rates were observed between patients with DCIS and those with microinvasive carcinoma. The triple-negative subtype was the only factor that was associated with tumor recurrence.

conclusionMicroinvasive carcinomas are distinct from DCIS in terms of clinicopathological features and biomarker expressions but are similar to DCIS in terms of clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that microinvasive carcinoma can be treated and followed up as pure DCIS.

Indexed as

Breast neoplasmsNoninfiltrating intraductal carcinomaRecurrenceTriple negative breast neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29963116
PMCPMC6015981
OpenAlexW2808885844

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.