Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30760859›Full record

ReviewModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2019

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: an update for the pathologist in the era of individualized risk assessment and tailored therapies.

Wedad M Hanna, Carlos Parra-Herran, Fang-I Lu, Elzbieta Slodkowska, Eileen Rakovitch, Sharon Nofech-Mozes

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Wedad M HannaDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, E432-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. wedad.hanna@sunnybrook.ca.
Carlos Parra-HerranDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, E432-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1420-7291
Fang-I LuDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, E432-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Elzbieta SlodkowskaDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, E432-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Eileen RakovitchDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, E432-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Sharon Nofech-MozesDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, E432-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a neoplastic proliferation of mammary ductal epithelial cells confined to the ductal-lobular system, and a non-obligate precursor of invasive disease. While there has been a significant increase in the diagnosis of DCIS in recent years due to uptake of mammography screening, there has been little change in the rate of invasive recurrence, indicating that a large proportion of patients diagnosed with DCIS will never develop invasive disease. The main issue for clinicians is how to reliably predict the prognosis of DCIS in order to individualize patient treatment, especially as treatment ranges from surveillance only, breast-conserving surgery only, to breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy and/or hormonal therapy, and mastectomy with or without radiotherapy. We conducted a semi-structured literature review to address the above issues relating to "pure" DCIS. Here we discuss the pathology of DCIS, risk factors for recurrence, biomarkers and molecular signatures, and disease management. Potential mechanisms of progression from DCIS to invasive cancer and problems faced by clinicians and pathologists in diagnosing and treating this disease are also discussed. Despite the tremendous research efforts to identify accurate risk stratification predictors of invasive recurrence and response to radiotherapy and endocrine therapy, to date there is no simple, well-validated marker or group of variables for risk estimation, particularly in the setting of adjuvant treatment after breast-conserving surgery. Thus, the standard of care to date remains breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy, with or without hormonal therapy. Emerging tools, such as pathologic or biologic markers, may soon change such practice. Our review also includes recent advances towards innovative treatment strategies, including targeted therapies, immune modulators, and vaccines.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHumansMammographyRisk Assessment

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.