ArticleBritish journal of cancer2018
A prediction model for underestimation of invasive breast cancer after a biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: based on 2892 biopsies and 589 invasive cancers.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison study between stereotactic versus digital breast tomosynthesis-guided core needle biopsy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Invasion prediction with artificial intelligence in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients: a proof-of-concept study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrating radiomics into predictive models for low nuclear grade DCIS using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- ASO Author Reflections: What Can Prediction Models for Upstaging of DCIS Diagnosed on Biopsy Tell Us About DCIS Surveillance Trials?Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Validation and Clinical Utility of a Prediction Model for the Risk of Upstaging to Invasive Breast Cancer After a Biopsy Diagnosis Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Review
- Predicting Lymph Node Metastases in Patients with Biopsy-Proven Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: Development and Validation of the DCIS-met Model.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Observational
- High rate of postoperative upstaging of ductal carcinoma in situ when prioritizing ultrasound evaluation of mammography-detected lesions: a single-center retrospective cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Imaging and Pathology of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: The Forest and the Trees.Radiology · 2022Article
- Pathological underestimation and biomarkers concordance rates in breast cancer patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ at preoperative biopsy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Ductal carcinoma in situ: a risk prediction model for the underestimation of invasive breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- Surgeons' preferences for using sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ.PloS one · 2022Article
- Morphological intratumor heterogeneity in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis, stage, and initial treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2021Article
- Ductal Carcinoma in situ: Underestimation of Percutaneous Biopsy and Positivity of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in a Brazilian Public Hospital.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2021Article
- Response to Meurs, Menke-Pluijmers, Seisling, and Westenend.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2020Article
- RE: Long-Term Outcomes of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2020Article
- Role of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Microinvasive Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Development and Validation of a Simple-to-Use Nomogram for Predicting the Upgrade of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Core Needle Biopsy in Ultrasound-Detected Breast Lesions.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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with a biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) might be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at excision, a phenomenon known as underestimation. Patients with DCIS are treated based on the risk of underestimation or progression to invasive cancer. The aim of our study was to expand the knowledge on underestimation and to develop a prediction model.
methodsPopulation-based data were retrieved from the Dutch Pathology Registry and the Netherlands Cancer Registry for DCIS between January 2011 and June 2012.
resultsOf 2892 DCIS biopsies, 21% were underestimated invasive breast cancers. In multivariable analysis, risk factors were high-grade DCIS (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.95), a palpable tumour (OR 2.22, 95% CI: 1.76-2.81), a BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) score 5 (OR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.80-3.09) and a suspected invasive component at biopsy (OR 3.84, 95% CI: 2.69-5.46). The predicted risk for underestimation ranged from 9.5 to 80.2%, with a median of 14.7%. Of the 596 invasive cancers, 39% had unfavourable features.
conclusionsThe risk for an underestimated diagnosis of invasive breast cancer after a biopsy diagnosis of DCIS is considerable. With our prediction model, the individual risk of underestimation can be calculated based on routinely available preoperatively known risk factors ( https://www.evidencio.com/models/show/1074 ).
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.