ArticleMedicine2020
Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis among patients with pure invasive ductal carcinoma, invasive ductal carcinoma coexisted with invasive micropapillary carcinoma, and invasive ductal carcinoma coexisted with ductal carcinoma in situ: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oncotype DX Recurrence Score Predicts Survival in Invasive Micropapillary Breast Carcinoma: A National Cancer Database Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Does concomitant ductal carcinoma in situ influence the prognostic outcome after neoadjuvant therapy in triple-negative invasive ductal carcinoma?World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer invasive ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Construction and validation of a nomogram for predicting the prognosis of patients with lymph node-positive invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: based on SEER database and external validation cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Authentication of a survival nomogram for non-invasive micropapillary breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Accuracy and Upgrading of CNB and BI-RADS Diagnoses Compared to Excision: A Clinicopathological-Radiological Correlation of Papillary Breast Lesions and Neoplasms.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Analysis of Prognostic Factors and Construction of Prognostic Models for Invasive Micropapillary Carcinoma of the Breast.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Micropapillary Breast Carcinoma: From Molecular Pathogenesis to Prognosis.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2022Review
- Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of mixed breast cancer metastasizing to the cervical region and thyroid: report of a rare case.Gland surgery · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper aimed to analyze the clinicopathological characteristics of invasive ductal carcinoma with an invasive micropapillary carcinoma component (IDC + IMPC), invasive ductal carcinoma with a ductal carcinoma in situ component (IDC + DCIS), and compare the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis to those of IDC.A total of 1713 patients (130 IDC + IMPC cases, 352 IDC + DCIS cases, and 1231 pure IDC cases) who underwent appropriate surgery from June 2011 to September 2017 were retrospectively selected.Compared to the pure IDC and IDC + DCIS patients, the IDC + IMPC patients presented with more aggressive characteristics, such as a higher proportion of vascular invasion (P < .001), fewer progesterone receptor (PR)-positive patients (P < .001), a lower proportion of cases in American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I (P < .001), a higher recurrence risk (P < .001), more deaths (P < .001), and more metastatic cases (P < .001). Compared to the pure IDC and IDC + IMPC patients, the IDC+DCIS patients presented with less aggressive characteristics, such as a higher proportion of estrogen receptor-positive patients (P < .001) and PR-positive patients (P < .001), a lower proportion of cases with nerve invasion (P < .001) and vascular invasion (P < .001), a higher proportion of cases in American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I (P < .001), fewer deaths (P < .001), and fewer metastatic cases (P < .001). The patients with IDC + DCIS had significantly better disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to those with pure IDC and IDC + IMPC (P < .001). The patients with IDC + IMPC had significantly worse DFS and OS compared to those with pure IDC and IDC + DCIS (P < .001). In univariate analysis, the presence of an IMPC component in IDC (P = .007), estrogen receptor status (P = .05), and PR status (P = .003) were factors associated with OS. In multivariate analysis, coexisting IMPC (P = .04) was the only independent prognostic factor associated with OS.Compared to IDC and IDC + DCIS, IDC + IMPC had more aggressive characteristics and significantly worse DFS and OS. Compared to IDC and IDC + IMPC, IDC + DCIS had less aggressive characteristics and significantly better DFS and OS.
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.