Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30054280›Full record

ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2018

A Biological Signature for Breast Ductal Carcinoma

Troy Bremer, Pat W Whitworth, Rakesh Patel, Jess Savala, Todd Barry, Stephen Lyle, Glen Leesman, Steven P Linke, Karin Jirström, Wenjing Zhou and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. p16, COX-2, and Ki67 Protein Expression in DCIS and Risk of Ipsilateral Invasive Breast Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Human Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Advances and Future Perspectives.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Troy BremerPreludeDx, Laguna Hills, California. tbremer@preludedx.com Fredrik.Warnberg@surgsci.uu.se.
Pat W WhitworthNashville Breast Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Rakesh PatelGood Samaritan Cancer Center, Los Gatos, California.
Jess SavalaPreludeDx, Laguna Hills, California.
Todd BarrySpectrum Pathology, Inc., Mission Viejo, California.
Stephen LyleUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Glen LeesmanPreludeDx, Laguna Hills, California.
Steven P LinkeSteven P. Linke Consulting, Carlsbad, California.
Karin JirströmDivision of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Wenjing ZhouDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Rose-Marie AminiDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0901-5252
Fredrik WärnbergDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Department of Surgery, Uppsala Academic Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. tbremer@preludedx.com Fredrik.Warnberg@surgsci.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDuctal carcinoma EXPERIMENTAL

designA biological signature that calculates an individualized Decision Score (DS) was developed and cross-validated in 526 DCIS patients treated with BCS ± RT. The relationship was assessed between DS and 10-year risk of invasive breast cancer (IBC) or any ipsilateral breast event (IBE), including IBC or DCIS. RT benefit was evaluated by risk group and as a function of DS.

resultsThe DS was significantly associated with IBC and IBE risk, HR (per 5 units) of 4.2 and 3.1, respectively. For patients treated without RT, DS identified a Low Group with 10-year IBC risk of 4% (7% IBE) and an Elevated Risk Group with IBC risk of 15% (23% IBE). In analysis of DS and RT by group, the Elevated Risk Group received significant RT benefit, HR of 0.3 for IBC and IBE. In a clinicopathologically low-risk subset, DS reclassified 42% of patients into the Elevated Risk Group. In an interaction analysis of DS and RT, patients with elevated DS had significant RT benefit over baseline.

conclusionsThe DS was prognostic for risk and predicted RT benefit for DCIS patients. DS identified a clinically meaningful low-risk group and a group with elevated 10-year risks that received substantial RT benefit over baseline.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsTreatment OutcomeTumor BurdenBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.