Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805030›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Prediction Models and Decision Aids for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Systematic Literature Review.

Renée S J M Schmitz, Erica A Wilthagen, Frederieke van Duijnhoven, Marja van Oirsouw, Ellen Verschuur, Thomas Lynch, Rinaa S Punglia, E Shelley Hwang, Jelle Wesseling, Marjanka K Schmidt and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

13 authors.

Renée S J M SchmitzDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erica A WilthagenDepartment of Scientific Information Service, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5677-1934
Frederieke van DuijnhovenDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marja van OirsouwBorstkanker Vereniging Nederland, 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ellen VerschuurBorstkanker Vereniging Nederland, 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Thomas LynchDivision of Surgical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Rinaa S PungliaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
E Shelley HwangDivision of Surgical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Jelle WesselingDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjanka K SchmidtDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eveline M A BleikerDepartment of Psycho-Oncology and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4357-949X
Ellen G EngelhardtDepartment of Psycho-Oncology and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0016-4972
Grand Challenge Precision ConsortiumDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Cancer Research UK and by KWF Dutch Cancer Society C38317/A24043
6 · The paper itself

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

decision aiddecision support toolductal carcinoma in situprediction model

Identifiers

PMID35805030
PMCPMC9265509

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.