ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Clinical and imaging characteristics of breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe analyzed the clinical and imaging characteristics of patients with breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCISM) and breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
methodsWe analyzed the records of 40 patients diagnosed with DCISM and 61 patients with DCIS who were hospitalized at Shengjing Hospital (Shenyang, China) from January 2009 to June 2016. The size, hardness, and degree of calcification of tumors were determined by mammography and ultrasonography.
resultsIn all, 37 DCISM patients and 45 DCIS patients showed clinical palpable masses (92.5% vs 73.77%, P = 0.018). Mammography showed that the mean size of tumor was larger in DCISM patients than that of DCIS patients (3.13 ± 1.51 vs 2.68 ± 1.77, P = 0.030). Ultrasound examination revealed calcification shadows in the solid tumor mass in 17 DCISM cases and 11 DCIS patients (42.5 vs 18.03%, P = 0.007). Furthermore, estrogen receptor positivity and progesterone receptor positivity were more common in DCIS patients (32.5% vs 54.10%, P = 0.033; 22.5% vs 45.90%, P = 0.017), and the percentage of menopausal patients were higher in DCISM patients than that of DCIS patients (70.00% vs 47.54%, P = 0.026).
conclusionClinically palpable and calcified tumor masses on sonography are more commonly encountered in DCISM lesions.
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.