ArticleAcademic radiology2020
Predicting Upstaging of DCIS to Invasive Disease: Radiologists's Predictive Performance.
Article in Academic radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in the Era of De-Escalation: Role, Limits, and Clinical Implications for Risk-Adapted Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Super-Resolution Ultrasound Radiomics Can Predict the Upstaging of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Radiology for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: Updates on Invasive Cancer Progression and Active Monitoring.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Application of deep learning on mammographies to discriminate between low and high-risk DCIS for patient participation in active surveillance trials.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- Is conservative management of ductal carcinoma in situ risky?NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- Mixed-Methods Study to Predict Upstaging of DCIS to Invasive Disease on Mammography.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesThe purpose of this study is to quantify breast radiologists' performance at predicting occult invasive disease when ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) presents as calcifications on mammography and to identify imaging and histopathological features that are associated with radiologists' performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsMammographically detected calcifications that were initially diagnosed as DCIS on core biopsy and underwent definitive surgical excision between 2010 and 2015 were identified. Thirty cases of suspicious calcifications upstaged to invasive ductal carcinoma and 120 cases of DCIS confirmed at the time of definitive surgery were randomly selected. Nuclear grade, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, patient age, calcification long axis length, and breast density were collected. Ten breast radiologists who were blinded to all clinical and pathology data independently reviewed all cases and estimated the likelihood that the DCIS would be upstaged to invasive disease at surgical excision. Subgroup analysis was performed based on nuclear grade, long axis length, breast density and after exclusion of microinvasive disease.
resultsReader performance to predict upstaging ranged from an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.541-0.684 with a mean AUC of 0.620 (95%CI: 0.489-0.751). Performances improved for lesions smaller than 2 cm (AUC: 0.676 vs 0.500; p = 0.002). The exclusion of microinvasive cases also improved performance (AUC: 0.651 vs 0.620; p = 0.005). There was no difference in performance based on breast density (p = 0.850) or nuclear grade (p = 0.270)
conclusionRadiologists were able to predict invasive disease better than chance, particularly for smaller DCIS lesions (<2 cm) and after the exclusion of microinvasive disease.
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.