Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35031626›Full record

ArticleNPJ breast cancer2022

Ductal carcinoma in situ: a risk prediction model for the underestimation of invasive breast cancer.

Ko Woon Park, Seon Woo Kim, Heewon Han, Minsu Park, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Young Ko, Ji Soo Choi, Eun Yoon Cho, Soo Youn Cho, Eun Sook Ko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Machine learning and new insights for breast cancer diagnosis.The Journal of international medical research · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ko Woon ParkDepartment of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9386-5772
Seon Woo KimStatistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Heewon HanStatistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Minsu ParkDepartment of Information and Statistics, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0624-5215
Boo-Kyung HanDepartment of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun Young KoDepartment of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ji Soo ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun Yoon ChoDepartment of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Soo Youn ChoDepartment of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9714-7575
Eun Sook KoDepartment of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. mathilda0330@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0399-7956

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with a biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer after excision. We evaluated the preoperative clinical and imaging predictors of DCIS that were associated with an upgrade to invasive carcinoma on final pathology and also compared the diagnostic performance of various statistical models. We reviewed the medical records; including mammography, ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings; of 644 patients who were preoperatively diagnosed with DCIS and who underwent surgery between January 2012 and September 2018. Logistic regression and three machine learning methods were applied to predict DCIS underestimation. Among 644 DCIS biopsies, 161 (25%) underestimated invasive breast cancers. In multivariable analysis, suspicious axillary lymph nodes (LNs) on US (odds ratio [OR], 12.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.94-29.95; P < 0.001) and high nuclear grade (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.24-2.91; P = 0.003) were associated with underestimation. Cases with biopsy performed using vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65; P < 0.001) and lesion size <2 cm on mammography (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.90; P = 0.021) and MRI (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.94; P = 0.037) were less likely to be upgraded. No significant differences in performance were observed between logistic regression and machine learning models. Our results suggest that biopsy device, high nuclear grade, presence of suspicious axillary LN on US, and lesion size on mammography or MRI were independent predictors of DCIS underestimation.

Identifiers

PMID35031626
PMCPMC8760307

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.