ReviewInternational journal of cancer2020
A retrospective alternative for active surveillance trials for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
Review in International journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semaphorin-7A promotes macrophage-mediated mammary epithelial and ductal carcinoma in situ invasion.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Integration of eQTL and GEO Datasets to Identify Genes Associated with Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- DCIS Progression and the Tumor Microenvironment: Molecular Insights and Prognostic Challenges.Cancers · 2025Review
- Risk perception of patients with ductal carcinomaHistology and histopathology · 2025Review
- Systematic assessment of HER2 status in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a perspective on the potential clinical relevance.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Review
- Progression from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive breast cancer: molecular features and clinical significance.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
- Review
- Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) and Microinvasive DCIS: Role of Surgery in Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Is conservative management of ductal carcinoma in situ risky?NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- Pathological underestimation and biomarkers concordance rates in breast cancer patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ at preoperative biopsy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Estrogen-Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women: The Role of Body Composition and Physical Exercise.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Morphological intratumor heterogeneity in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Ductal carcinoma in situ in patients younger than 30 years: differences in adjuvant endocrine therapy and outcomes.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- The effect of an e-learning module on grading variation of (pre)malignant breast lesions.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020Article
- Grading variation in 2,934 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the effect of laboratory- and pathologist-specific feedback reports.Diagnostic pathology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is a nonobligate precursor of invasive breast cancer, accounting for 20 % of screen-detected breast cancers. Little is known about the natural progression of DCIS because most patients undergo surgery upon diagnosis. Many DCIS patients are likely being overtreated, as it is believed that only around 50 % of DCIS will progress to invasive carcinoma. Robust prognostic markers for progression to invasive carcinoma are lacking. In the past, studies have investigated women who developed a recurrence after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and compared them with those who did not. However, where there is no recurrence, the patient has probably been adequately treated. The present narrative review advocates a new research strategy, wherein only those patients with a recurrence are studied. Approximately half of the recurrences are invasive cancers, and half are DCIS. So-called "recurrences" are probably most often the result of residual disease. The new approach allows us to ask: why did some residual DCIS evolve to invasive cancers and others not? This novel strategy compares the group of patients that developed in situ recurrence with the group of patients that developed invasive recurrence after BCS. The differences between these groups could then be used to develop a robust risk stratification tool. This tool should estimate the risk of synchronous and metachronous invasive carcinoma when DCIS is diagnosed in a biopsy. Identification of DCIS patients at low risk for developing invasive carcinoma will individualize future therapy and prevent overtreatment.
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.