ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
A Novel Nomogram for Predicting Prognosis and Tailoring Local Therapy Decision for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ after Breast Conserving Surgery.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of immune microenvironment on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ receiving breast conservative therapy.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Article
- Postoperative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: survival prediction and clinical decision support using a nomogram-based approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Purpose: We sought to explore the role of nomogram-combined biomarkers, mammographic microcalcification and inflammatory hematologic markers in guiding local therapy decisions in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) subgroups with different ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) risk. Methods: Between January 2009 and December 2018, consecutive patients with DCIS and breast conserving surgery (BCS) were enrolled and randomly assigned to a training cohort (n = 181) and internally validation cohort (n = 78). Multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of IBTR. Model performance was evaluated by the concordance index (C-index) and calibration plot. The time-to-event curves were calculated by the Kaplan−Meier methods and compared by the log-rank test. Results: In total, 259 patients were enrolled and 182 of them received whole breast irradiation (WBI). After a median follow-up of 51.02 months, 23 IBTR events occurred in the whole cohort. By multivariate analyses of training cohort, presence of microinvasion, Ki67 index >14%, mammographic-clustered fine linear microcalcifications and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio before BCS (preop-NLR), >1.1 remained independent risk factors of IBTR to develop a nomogram. The C-indexes of the nomogram were 0.87 and 0.86 in the training and internal validation set, respectively. Calibration plots illustrated good agreement between the predictions and actual observations for 5-year IBTR. Cut-off values of nomogram point were identified as 53 and 115 points, which divided all patients into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups. Significant differences in IBTR existed between low-, intermediate- and high-risk subgroups (p < 0.01). For the whole cohort and ER-positive tumours, the benefit of WBI was found only in the intermediate-risk subgroup, but not in those with low or high risk. Fourteen out of 23 IBTRs occurred outside the original quadrant and all occurred in the high-risk group. Conclusions: The novel nomogram demonstrated potential to separate the risk of IBTR and locations of IBTR. For the whole cohort and ER-positive tumours, the benefit of WBI was restricted to an intermediate-risk subgroup.
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.