ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2022
Molecular subtyping reveals uniqueness of prognosis in breast ductal carcinoma in situ patients with lumpectomy.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Predictive Role of Mammography, Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Hormone Receptor Status of Pure Ductal CarcinomaEuropean journal of breast health · 2024Article
- Spectrum of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Lesions of the Breast: From Morphology to Molecular Characteristics.Cureus · 2024Article
- Systematic assessment of HER2 status in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a perspective on the potential clinical relevance.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Review
- Tools to Guide Radiation Oncologists in the Management of DCIS.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Breast carcinoma arising in a fibroadenoma: A case series of 16 patients and review of the literature.Oncology letters · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to analyse the discrepancy in clinical features and prognosis between molecular subtypes in primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients with lumpectomy.
methodsPrimary DCIS patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries database from 2010 to 2017. Based on immunohistochemistry markers of hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), enrolled DCIS cases were divided into four molecular subtypes, HR-HER2-, HR-HER2+, HR + HER2+, and HR + HER2-. Clinical features and prognosis were compared between molecular subtypes. Radiotherapy (RT) effects on prognosis were also analysed in each molecular subtype.
resultsA total of 5,628 DCIS cases were retrospectively enrolled in this study. HR-HER2-, HR-HER2+, HR+HER2+, and HR+HER2- are 299 (5.3%), 498 (8.8%), 1,086 (19.3%), and 3,745 (66.5%), respectively. HR + HER2- cases have smaller tumor size (72.6%, P < 0.001) and lower grade (23.5%, P < 0.001). Comedo necrosis is more frequent in HR-HER2- (24.4%, P < 0.001) and HR-HER2+ DCIS cases (24.3%, P < 0.001). In univariate analyses, HR-HER2+ cases have significantly higher ipsilateral breast event (IBE) recurrence than HR+HER2- cases (P = 0.010). HR-HER2- cases show higher disease-specific mortality than HR+HER2+ cases (P = 0.021). In high-risk DCIS cases, RT reduces the absolute 5-year IBE incidence by 1.3%, 0.7%, 1.9%, and 2.6%, respectively in HR-HER2-, HR-HER2+, HR+HER2+, and HR+HER2- cases, respectively.
conclusionIn this population-based study, DCIS cases have diverse clinical and prognostic features for different molecular subtypes. Adjusting treatment strategies according to DCIS molecular subtypes is worth advancing.
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.