ArticleJournal of ultrasound2022
Ultrasound evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in the Era of De-Escalation: Role, Limits, and Clinical Implications for Risk-Adapted Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Predictors and nomogram for upstaging to invasive breast carcinoma in ductal carcinomaGland surgery · 2025Article
- AI-Based Ultrasound Nomogram for Differentiating Invasive from Non-Invasive Breast Cancer Masses.Cancers · 2025Article
- Prevalence and outcomes of nonmass lesions detected on screening breast ultrasound based on ultrasound features.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Article
- Mitigating overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.Radiology advances · 2025Review
- Ultrasound characteristics comparison and development of a predictive nomogram for intraductal papilloma and ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Correlation of sonographic features with prognostic factors in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: an exploratory study using ultrasound and shear wave elastography.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Differentiation between invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ by combining intratumoral and peritumoral ultrasound radiomics.Biomedical engineering online · 2024Article
- The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine guidelines on non-mass abnormalities of the breast.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2023Review
- Recent Advances in Ultrasound Breast Imaging: From Industry to Clinical Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the role of ultrasound (US) in detecting and characterizing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast and to investigate the correlation between ultrasonographic and biological features of DCIS.
methodsIn total, 171 patients (mean age 44; range 39-62) with 178 lesions were retrospectively evaluated by two independent radiologists searching for US mass or non-mass lesions. Immunohistochemistry analysis was performed to determine estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. The US detection rate and pattern distribution among the lesion types were evaluated. The χ
resultsUS detected 35% (63/178) of all lesions. Fifty-two (83%) lesions were classified as mass lesions, and 11 (17%) as non-mass lesions (p < 0.0001). Among the mass lesions, the most common shape was irregular (79%; p < 0.0001), with 45 (87%) lesions having indistinct margins. Hypoechogenicity was the most common echo pattern (49 cases, 94%; p < 0.0001). Microcalcifications were found in 23 cases (37%; p = 0.004) and were associated with mass lesions in 15 cases (65%) and with non-mass lesions in 8 cases (35%) (p = 0.21). An almost perfect inter-observer agreement (k = 0.87) was obtained between the two radiologists. A significant ER expression was found in mass lesions (83%; p < 0.0001), with no significant PR (p = 0.89) or HER2 expression (p = 0.81). Among the lesions with microcalcifications, only 7 out of 23 cases (30%) were positive for HER2 (p = 0.09).
conclusionDCIS represents a heterogeneous pathological process with variable US appearance (mass-like, non-mass-like, or occult). The most common US finding is represented by mass-type, hypoechogenic lesions with indistinct margins. A significant ER expression exists among mass-type lesions, while microcalcifications seem not to be associated with HER2 expression.
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.