Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36427119›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer research and treatment2023

Prognostic significance of microinvasion with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a meta-analysis.

Sho Shiino, Cecily Quinn, Graham Ball, Binafsha M Syed, Sasagu Kurozumi, Hitoshi Tsuda, Emad A Rakha

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Case Report: Breast ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Sho ShiinoNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Cecily QuinnHistopathology, Irish National Breast Screening Programme, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Graham BallJohn Van Geest Cancer Research Centre, School of Science & Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Campus, Clifton Lane, Nottingham, UK.
Binafsha M SyedMedical Research Centre, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan.
Sasagu KurozumiDepartment of Breast Surgery, International University of Health and Welfare, Narita, Japan.
Hitoshi TsudaDepartment of Basic Pathology, National Defense Medical College Hospital, Tokorozawa, Japan.
Emad A RakhaNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. emad.rakha@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5009-5525
University of Nottingham · GBGunma University · JPLiaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences · PKNational Defense Medical College Hospital · JPNottingham Trent University · GBSt. Vincent's University Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDuctal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) associated with invasive carcinoma ≤ 1 mm in size is defined as DCIS with microinvasion (DCIS/microinvasion) rather than as invasive breast carcinoma. The number of patients with microinvasion accounts for < 1% of all breast cancer in published studies. As the numbers are limited, the prognostic significance of DCIS/microinvasion has not been clearly elucidated. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the survival differences between patients with DCIS/microinvasion and those with pure DCIS.

methodsA meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was performed. We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) and included observational studies published in English that contained survival details of patients with either DCIS or DCIS/microinvasion.

resultsThis study identified 26 studies that described the clinicopathological characteristics of patients in both the DCIS and DCIS/microinvasion groups. Survival differences were evaluated in 10 of 26 studies. Disease-free survival and loco-regional recurrence-free survival were significantly shorter in patients with DCIS/microinvasion than in those with DCIS (Hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.08; p = 0.01 and hazard ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-4.41; p = 0.001, respectively). Both overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival tended to be shorter in patients with DCIS/microinvasion than in patients with DCIS (Hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.63-4.23; p = 0.31 and hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-4.66; p = 0.19, respectively) but the difference was not statistically significant.

conclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that DCIS/microinvasion may display more aggressive biological and clinical behavior than pure DCIS, highlighting the potential need for closer follow-up and consideration of adjuvant treatment strategies in DCIS patients with microinvasive disease.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingBreastDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansNeoplasm InvasivenessPrognosisRetrospective StudiesBreast cancerDuctal carcinoma in situDuctal carcinoma in situ with microinvasionMeta-analysisPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID36427119
PMCPMC9823049
OpenAlexW4310080046

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.