Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36224403›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2022

The presentation, management and outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (invasion ≤1 mm in size)-results from the UK Sloane Project.

Abeer M Shaaban, Bridget Hilton, Karen Clements, David Dodwell, Nisha Sharma, Cliona Kirwan, Elinor Sawyer, Anthony Maxwell, Matthew Wallis, Hilary Stobart and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 12 institutions in 2 countries.

Abeer M ShaabanQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. a.shaaban@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5784-8705
Bridget HiltonNHS England and NHS Improvement, Birmingham, UK.
Karen ClementsNHS England and NHS Improvement, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0113-4409
David DodwellNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8787-4904
Nisha SharmaLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Cliona KirwanDivision of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Elinor SawyerSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, Guy's Comprehensive Cancer Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8285-4111
Anthony MaxwellDivision of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8344-4958
Matthew WallisAddenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge and Cambridge Breast Unit, and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Hilary StobartIndependent Cancer Patients' Voice, London, UK.
Senthurun MylvaganamRoyal Wolverhampton Hospital NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.
Janet LitherlandNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Samantha Brace-McDonnellIndependent Cancer Patients' Voice, London, UK.
Joanne Dulson-CoxNHS England and NHS Improvement, Birmingham, UK.
Olive KearinsNHS England and NHS Improvement, Birmingham, UK.
Elena ProvenzanoAddenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge and Cambridge Breast Unit, and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Ian O EllisNottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5292-8474
Sarah E PinderSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, Guy's Comprehensive Cancer Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4167-8910
Alastair M ThompsonBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
NHS EnglandCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBThe Patients Association · GBBaylor College of Medicine · USLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBWolverhampton Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) C17422/A25154Cancer Research UK (CRUK) C38317/A24043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe diagnosis, management and prognosis of microinvasive breast carcinoma remain controversial.

methodsWe analysed the outcomes of patients with DCIS with and without microinvasion diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 within the Sloane project.

resultsMicroinvasion was recorded in 521 of 11,285 patients (4.6%), with considerable variation in reported incidence among screening units (0-25%). Microinvasion was associated with high-grade DCIS, larger DCIS size, comedo necrosis and solid, cribriform architecture (all P < 0.001). Microinvasion was more frequent in patients who underwent mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (6.9% vs 3.6%, P <  0.001), and in those undergoing axillary nodal surgery (60.4% vs 30.3%, P <  0.001) including the subset undergoing BCS (43.4% vs 8.5%, P < 0.001). Nodal metastasis rate was low and not statistically significant difference from the DCIS only group (P = 0.68). Following median follow-up of 110 months, 3% of patients had recurrent ipsilateral high-grade DCIS, and 4.2% developed invasive carcinoma. The subsequent ipsilateral invasion was of Grade 3 in 71.4% of patients with microinvasion vs 30.4% in DCIS without microinvasion (P = 0.02). Distant metastasis and breast cancer mortality were higher with microinvasion compared with DCIS only (1.2% vs 0.3%, P = 0.01 and 2.1% vs 0.8%; P = 0.005).

conclusionsThe higher breast cancer mortality with microinvasion indicates a more aggressive disease.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHumansMastectomyUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID36224403
PMCPMC9726983
OpenAlexW4304734185

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.