ArticleIranian journal of pathology2024
Comparison of the Structural, Cytological and Biomarker Expression in Carcinoma in situ and Invasive Components in Breast Carcinoma.
Article in Iranian journal of pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objective: Breast cancer is thought to arise from non-invasive breast lesions, such as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). DCIS is considered a direct precursor of invasive carcinoma. The morphological features alone do not reflect the biological truth of this disease. Therefore, we investigated features of carcinoma in situ and the invasive components in women diagnosed with breast cancer. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional study. The corresponding IHC slides were selected from the pathology archive and examined by the pathologist. Fifty-one samples which showed both in situ and invasive components confirmed immunohistochemically, were included in the study. Results: In 70.6% of the cases a high grade of in situ and invasive carcinoma was observed. In 45.1% of the studied cases, a solid structure was observed in in-situ carcinoma, and no otherwise specified structure was observed in invasive carcinoma. In 74.5% of both in situ and invasive carcinoma types, ER.PR had a positive value. In 45.5% of the cases, both in situ and invasive carcinoma components show low Ki67. In 42.2%, both in situ and invasive carcinomas were Her2 negative. There was no significant difference between the grade ( Conclusion: Our study showed differences between in situ and invasive biomarker expression. According to our findings, owing to heterogeneity, in situ components can't be representative of invasive components for treatment choices.
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.