Observational studyMedicine2018
Expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki-67 in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Radiation With or Without Concurrent Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Resected by Lumpectomy: A Phase III Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021Trial
- Enabling DCIS subtyping: leveraging foundation models for robust grading and molecular biomarker scoring.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Article
- Refining Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Decisions for Clinically Node-Negative Microinvasive DCIS.The breast journal · 2026Article
- Prognostic Molecular Biomarkers in Breast Cancer Lesions with Non-Mass Enhancement on MR.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Structural, Cytological and Biomarker Expression in Carcinoma in situ and Invasive Components in Breast Carcinoma.Iranian journal of pathology · 2024Article
- Clinicopathological characteristics, treatments, and prognosis of breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: A narrative review.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2023Review
- Pathological underestimation and biomarkers concordance rates in breast cancer patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ at preoperative biopsy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Breast ductal Carcinoma in situ associated with microinvasion induces immunological response and predicts ipsilateral invasive recurrence.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Molecular alterations differentiate microinvasive carcinoma from ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast carcinoma: retrospective analysis of a large single-center series.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 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
- The role of MRI and clinicopathologic features in predicting the invasive component of biopsy-confirmed ductal carcinoma in situ.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
- Differences in pathologic characteristics between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), DCIS with microinvasion and DCIS with invasive ductal carcinoma.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2020Article
- DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease?Annals of surgical oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) represents a heterogeneous disease in its histologic appearance and biological potential. Some women treated for DCIS subsequently develop invasive breast cancer. DCIS with microinvasion is considered as the interim stage in the progression from DCIS to invasive breast cancer. Analysis of the differences between DCIS and DCIS with microinvasion may aid in understanding the characteristic of DCIS with microinvasion and identifying biological factors determining progression of DCIS to invasive disease.Retrospective analysis of 219 cases between 2012 and 2018 was performed in our institution. The pathological results and axillary lymph nodes status were collected. Analysis of the expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2), and Ki-67 in pure DCIS (164 cases), and DCIS with microinvasion (55 cases) using immunohistochemistry.DCIS with microinvasion had a higher nuclear grade (P < .001) and was more likely to have sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) positivity (P = .039) than DCIS. Expression of ER, PR were significantly higher in DCIS compared with DCIS with microinvasion (P < .001, P < .001). While the expression of HER-2 in DCIS with microinvasion (56.4%) was significantly higher than in DCIS (36.6%, P = .01). Furthermore, DCIS with microinvasion was significantly more likely to have aggressive subtype (Triple-negative and HER2-enriched tumors, P = .005).Our results indicated that DCIS with microinvasion was different from pure DCIS in clinicopathologic characteristics and molecular alterations. It displayed a more aggressive biological nature than pure DCIS. It may be a distinct entity.
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.