ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2021
Chronological Trends of Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Clinical, Radiologic, and Pathologic Perspectives.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBecause no prior studies have evaluated the chronological trends of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) despite the increasing number of surgeries performed for DCIS, this study analyzed how the clinical, radiologic, and pathologic characteristics of DCIS changed during a 10-year period.
methodsOf 7123 patients who underwent primary breast cancer surgery at a single institution from 2006 to 2015, 792 patients with pure DCIS were included in this study. The chronological trends of age, symptoms, method for detecting either mammography or ultrasonography, tumor size, nuclear grade, comedonecrosis, and molecular markers were calculated using Poisson regression for all patients and asymptomatic patients.
resultsDuring 10 years, DCIS surgery rates significantly increased (p < 0.001). Despite the high percentage of DCIS detected on mammography, the detection rate for DCIS by mammography significantly decreased (97.3% in 2006 to 67.6% in 2015; p = 0.025), whereas the detection rate by ultrasound significantly increased (2.7% to 31.0%; p < 0.001). Conservation surgery rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.058), low-to-intermediate nuclear grade rates (OR, 1.069), and the absence of comedonecrosis (OR, 1.104) significantly increased over time (all p < 0.05). Estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (OR, 0.935) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positivity rates (OR, 0.953) significantly decreased (all p < 0.05). The same trends were observed for the 613 asymptomatic patients.
conclusionThe rate of DCIS detected on ultrasound only significantly increased during 10 years. Low-to-intermediate nuclear grade rates significantly increased, whereas ER negativity and HER2 positivity rates significantly decreased during the same period. These findings suggest that DCIS detected on screening ultrasound is less aggressive than DCIS detected on mammography.
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.