Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31388937›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2019

Reliability of preoperative breast biopsies showing ductal carcinoma in situ and implications for non-operative treatment: a cohort study.

Gurdeep S Mannu, Emma J Groen, Zhe Wang, Michael Schaapveld, Esther H Lips, Monica Chung, Ires Joore, Flora E van Leeuwen, Hendrik J Teertstra, Gonneke A O Winter-Warnars and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Low-risk DCIS. What is it? Observe or excise?Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gurdeep S MannuNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. gurdeep.mannu@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0219-9474
Emma J GroenAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zhe WangNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Michael SchaapveldAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Esther H LipsAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monica ChungAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ires JooreAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Flora E van LeeuwenAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hendrik J TeertstraAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gonneke A O Winter-WarnarsAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sarah C DarbyNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Jelle WesselingAntoni van Leeuwenhoek - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21133Cancer Research UK C8225/A21133Medical Research Council MC_U137686858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe future of non-operative management of DCIS relies on distinguishing lesions requiring treatment from those needing only active surveillance. More accurate preoperative staging and grading of DCIS would be helpful. We identified determinants of upstaging preoperative breast biopsies showing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive breast cancer (IBC), or of upgrading them to higher-grade DCIS, following examination of the surgically excised specimen.

methodsWe studied all women with DCIS at preoperative biopsy in a large specialist cancer centre during 2000-2014. Information from clinical records, mammography, and pathology specimens from both preoperative biopsy and excised specimen were abstracted. Women suspected of having IBC during biopsy were excluded.

resultsAmong 606 preoperative biopsies showing DCIS, 15.0% (95% confidence interval 12.3-18.1) were upstaged to IBC and a further 14.6% (11.3-18.4) upgraded to higher-grade DCIS. The risk of upstaging increased with presence of a palpable lump (21.1% vs 13.0%, p

conclusionsThe risk of upstaging of DCIS in preoperative biopsies is lower than previously estimated and justifies conducting randomized clinical trials testing the safety of active surveillance for lower grade DCIS. Selection of women with low grade DCIS for such trials, or for active surveillance, may be improved by consideration of the additional factors identified in this study.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCohort StudiesCombined Modality TherapyDisease ManagementFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNetherlandsPreoperative CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesBiopsyBreast cancerDCISDuctal carcinoma in situUpgradingUpstaging

Identifiers

PMID31388937
PMCPMC6797705
OpenAlexW2964603785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.