ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2020
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Biology, Language, and Active Surveillance: A Survey of Breast Radiologists' Knowledge and Opinions.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the malignancy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: the role of contrast enhanced mammography.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Ductal carcinoma in situ of the male breast: clinical radiological features and management in a cancer referral center.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022Article
- Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: State-of-the-Art Review.Radiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo understand how breast radiologists perceive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND
methodsA 19-item survey was developed by the Society of Breast Imaging Patient Care and Delivery Committee and distributed to all Society of Breast Imaging members. The survey queried respondents' demographics, knowledge of DCIS biology, language used to discuss a new diagnosis of DCIS, and perspectives on active surveillance for DCIS. Five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree) were used.
resultsThere were 536 responses for a response rate of 41%. There was agreement that DCIS is the primary driver of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening (median 4), and respondents provided mean and median overdiagnosis estimates of 29.7% and 25% for low-grade DCIS as well as 4.2% and 0% for high-grade DCIS, respectively. Responses varied in how to describe DCIS but most often used the word "cancer" with a qualifier such as "early" (32%) or "pre-invasive" (25%). Respondents disagreed (median 2) with removing the word "carcinoma" from DCIS. Finally, there was agreement that current standard of care therapy for some forms of DCIS is overtreatment (median 4) and that active surveillance as an alternative management strategy should be studied (mean 4), but felt that ultrasound (median 4) and MRI (median 4) should be used to exclude women with occult invasive disease before active surveillance.
conclusionsBreast radiologists' opinions about DCIS biology, language, and active surveillance are not homogenous, but general trends exist that can be used to guide research, education, and advocacy efforts.
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.