ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2021
The Clinical Utility of DCISionRT
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lumpectomy Margins and Local Recurrence in DCIS: Results From the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-35 Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA surgery · 2026Trial
- Impact of Tamoxifen Only After Lumpectomy for "Good-Risk" Duct Carcinoma In Situ: Combined Analysis of the NRG Oncology/RTOG 9804 and ECOG-ACRIN E5194 Trials.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026Article
- Margin of Error: The Emerging Role of Field Cancerization in Predicting Recurrence Risk of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- The impact of immune microenvironment on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ receiving breast conservative therapy.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Article
- Radiotherapy as a surgical alternative in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): long-term survival benefits and predictors of invasive progression risk.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Current pattern of care in radiation therapy for DCIS in Australia and New Zealand - where are we heading?Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Single-Cell Expression Analysis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Identifies Complex Genotypic-Phenotypic Relationships Altering Epithelial Composition.Cancer research · 2025Article
- Mitigating overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.Radiology advances · 2025Review
- Preoperative MRI to Predict Upstaging of DCIS to Invasive Cancer at Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Observational
- Effectiveness of FLASH vs. Conventional Dose Rate Radiotherapy in a Model of Orthotopic, Murine Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- Comparative Analyses of Van Nuys Prognostic Index and NCCN Guidelines in Ductal CarcinomaLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- The Role of Molecular Profiling in De-Escalation of Toxic Therapy in Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- An early economic evaluation of active surveillance for low-risk ductal carcinomaFuture oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Breast Conservation Project: Clinical Outcomes of Extreme Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy for Large and Multiple Lesions.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- How much do we know about the metastatic process?Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2024Review
- Tools to Guide Radiation Oncologists in the Management of DCIS.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Lumpectomy without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 20-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study.NPJ breast cancer · 2024Article
- Genetic profiling in radiotherapy: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of radiation therapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Trials have not identified a low-risk cohort, based on clinicopathologic features, who do not benefit from RT. A biosignature (DCISionRT
methodsThe PREDICT study is a prospective, multi-institutional, observational registry in which patients underwent DCISionRT testing. The primary endpoint was to identify the percentage of patients where testing led to a change in RT recommendations.
resultsOverall, 539 women were included in this study. Pre DCISionRT testing, RT was recommended to 69% of patients; however, post-testing, a change in the RT recommendation was made for 42% of patients compared with the pre-testing recommendation; the percentage of women who were recommended RT decreased by 20%. For women initially recommended not to receive an RT pre-test, 35% had their recommendation changed to add RT following testing, while post-test, 46% of patients had their recommendation changed to omit RT after an initial recommendation for RT. When considered in conjunction with other clinicopathologic factors, the elevated DCISionRT score risk group (DS > 3) had the strongest association with an RT recommendation (odds ratio 43.4) compared with age, grade, size, margin status, and other factors.
conclusionsDCISionRT provided information that significantly changed the recommendations to add or omit RT. Compared with traditional clinicopathologic features used to determine recommendations for or against RT, the factor most strongly associated with RT recommendations was the DCISionRT result, with other factors of importance being patient preference, tumor size, and grade.
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.