ReviewCancers2022
Prediction Models and Decision Aids for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcriptome predictors of second breast events in ductal carcinoma in situ: a case‒control study including Black and White women.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Article
- Deep learning for predicting invasive recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ: leveraging histopathology images and clinical features.EBioMedicine · 2025Article
- Treatment and Outcome of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ for the German Federal States Berlin and Brandenburg in the Period 2007-2020.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2025Article
- Tools to Guide Radiation Oncologists in the Management of DCIS.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Active surveillance versus treatment in low-risk DCIS: Women's preferences in the LORD-trial.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2023Article
- Molecular Signatures in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Identifying recurrences and metastasis after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast.Histopathology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Even though Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) can potentially be an invasive breast cancer (IBC) precursor, most DCIS lesions never will progress to IBC if left untreated. Because we cannot predict yet which DCIS lesions will and which will not progress, almost all women with DCIS are treated by breast-conserving surgery +/- radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. As a consequence, many women with non-progressive DCIS carry the burden of intensive treatment without any benefit. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to optimize DCIS management, aiming to find the balance between over- and undertreatment. In this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and added value of such tools. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline(ovid), Embase(ovid), Scopus and TRIP. Following the PRISMA guidelines, publications were selected. The CHARMS (prediction models) or IPDAS (decision aids) checklist were used to evaluate the tools' methodological quality. Thirty-three publications describing four decision aids and six prediction models were included. The decision aids met at least 50% of the IPDAS criteria. However, most lacked tools to facilitate discussion of the information with healthcare providers. Five prediction models quantify the risk of an ipsilateral breast event after a primary DCIS, one estimates the risk of contralateral breast cancer, and none included active surveillance. Good quality and external validations were lacking for all prediction models. There remains an unmet clinical need for well-validated, good-quality DCIS risk prediction models and decision aids in which active surveillance is included as a management option for low-risk DCIS.
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.