Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34973083›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2022

Inflammatory breast cancer defined: proposed common diagnostic criteria to guide treatment and research.

R Jagsi, G Mason, B A Overmoyer, W A Woodward, S Badve, R J Schneider, J E Lang, M Alpaugh, K P Williams, D Vaught and 4 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2022. 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 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reprogramming the Immune Landscape of Inflammatory Breast Cancer.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

R JagsiUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
G MasonInflammatory Breast Cancer Research Foundation, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
B A OvermoyerDana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
W A WoodwardUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
S BadveIndiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, 535 Barnhill Drive, RT 473, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA.
R J SchneiderNew York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
J E LangCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
M AlpaughRowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA.
K P WilliamsNorth Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, USA.
D VaughtSusan G. Komen, Dallas, TX, USA.
A SmithSusan G. Komen, Dallas, TX, USA.
K SmithSusan G. Komen, Dallas, TX, USA.
K D MillerIndiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, 535 Barnhill Drive, RT 473, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. kathmill@iu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7125-883X
Susan G. Komen-IBCRF IBC Collaborative in partnership with the Milburn Foundation
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation · USIndiana University Health · USCleveland Clinic · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USNew York University · USNorth Carolina Central University · USRowan University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInflammatory breast cancer is a deadly and aggressive type of breast cancer. A key challenge relates to the need for a more detailed, formal, objective definition of IBC, the lack of which compromises clinical care, hampers the conduct of clinical trials, and hinders the search for IBC-specific biomarkers and treatments because of the heterogeneity of patients considered to have IBC.

methodsSusan G. Komen, the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Milburn Foundation convened patient advocates, clinicians, and researchers to review the state of IBC and to propose initiatives to advance the field. After literature review of the defining clinical, pathologic, and imaging characteristics of IBC, the experts developed a novel quantitative scoring system for diagnosis.

resultsThe experts identified through consensus several "defining characteristics" of IBC, including factors related to timing of onset and specific symptoms. These reflect common pathophysiologic changes, sometimes detectable on biopsy in the form of dermal lymphovascular tumor emboli and often reflected in imaging findings. Based on the importance and extent of these characteristics, the experts developed a scoring scale that yields a continuous score from 0 to 48 and proposed cut-points for categorization that can be tested in subsequent validation studies.

conclusionTo move beyond subjective 'clinical diagnosis' of IBC, we propose a quantitative scoring system to define IBC, based on clinical, pathologic, and imaging features. This system is intended to predict outcome and biology, guide treatment decisions and inclusion in clinical trials, and increase diagnostic accuracy to aid basic research; future validation studies are necessary to evaluate its performance.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsInflammatory Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansClinical diagnosisDiagnostic criteriaInflammatory breast cancerMolecular markersPathology

Identifiers

PMID34973083
PMCPMC8926970
OpenAlexW4205694647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.