ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- Ipsilateral tumor recurrence risk in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: application of the Van Nuys Prognostic Index and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Predicting Underestimation of Invasive Cancer in Patients with Core-Needle-Biopsy-Diagnosed Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Using Deep Learning Algorithms.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Prediction of the histologic upgrade of ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Prediction of Surgical Upstaging Risk of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Using Machine Learning Models.Journal of breast imagingArticle
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
Abstract
objectivesTo compare upgrade rates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and identify patient, imaging, and pathological features associated with upgrade risk.
methodsA retrospective review was performed of 318 women (mean 59 years, range 37-89) with screening-detected DCIS from 2007 to 2011 (DM group) and from 2013 to 2016 (DBT group). Comparisons made between DM and DBT groups using the unpaired t test and chi-square test include detection rates of DCIS, upgrade rates to invasive cancer, and pathological features of DCIS and upgraded cases. Patient, imaging, and pathological features associated with upgrade were also determined. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.
resultsThere was no significant difference in detection rates of DCIS between DM and DBT groups (0.9 versus 1.0 per 1000 examinations, p = 0.45). Upgrade rates of DCIS to invasive cancer in DM and DBT groups were similar (17.3% versus 16.8%, p = 0.90), despite significant differences in pathological features of DCIS between DM and DBT groups (including nuclear grade, comedonecrosis, and progesterone receptor status [p ≤ 0.01]). Among upgraded cases, a higher proportion were high-grade invasive cancers with DBT (36.7% versus 9.5%, p = 0.03). In both groups, ultrasound-guided (versus stereotactic) biopsy was associated with higher upgrade risk (p ≤ 0.03).
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in detection rates or upgrade rates of DCIS on DM versus DBT; however, upgraded cases were more likely to be high grade with DBT, suggesting possible differences in tumor biology between cancers with DM and DBT. In both DM and DBT groups, biopsy modality was associated with upgrade risk. KEY POINTS: • Detection rates and upgrade rates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are similar. • A higher proportion of upgraded cases were high-grade invasive cancers with DBT than DM, suggesting possible differences in tumor biology between cancers that are detected with DM and DBT. • With both DM and DBT, ultrasound-guided biopsy (versus stereotactic biopsy) was associated with a higher risk of upgrade.
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.