ArticleNPJ breast cancer2022
Ductal carcinoma in situ: a risk prediction model for the underestimation of invasive breast cancer.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in the radiologic assessment of ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Channel attention of the image for distinguishing ductal carcinomaGland surgery · 2026Article
- Development of a Nomogram-Based Clinical Estimation Model for Pathological Upstaging in Patients With Preoperative Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Multicenter development and external validation of clinical-radiomics models to predict surgically confirmed upstaging in biopsy-proven DCIS using DCE-MRI.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Predictors and nomogram for upstaging to invasive breast carcinoma in ductal carcinomaGland surgery · 2025Article
- Super-Resolution Ultrasound Radiomics Can Predict the Upstaging of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Integrating radiomics into predictive models for low nuclear grade DCIS using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Florid Lobular Carcinoma In Situ: Imaging Characteristics and Pathologic Upgrade Rates on Surgical Excision.The breast journal · 2025Article
- An Overview of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) in Women's Breast Cancer.Current molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Machine learning and new insights for breast cancer diagnosis.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Review
- Survival Outcomes Based on Axillary Surgery in Ductal CarcinomaJournal of breast cancer · 2024Article
- Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) and Microinvasive DCIS: Role of Surgery in Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Prediction of Surgical Upstaging Risk of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Using Machine Learning Models.Journal of breast imagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.