ArticleCureus2025
Secondary Breast Angiosarcoma Five Years After Radiation Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Early-Onset Radiation-Induced Angiosarcoma of the Breast: A Case Report and Literature Review.European journal of breast health · 2026Article
- Peritoneal Post-Radiation Angiosarcoma in a Patient With a History of Radiation for Cervical Cancer.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiation-induced angiosarcoma (RIAS) of the breast is a rare and aggressive malignancy that emerges as a late complication of radiation therapy for primary breast cancer. We present the case of a 56-year-old woman with a history of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast, previously treated with lumpectomy, sentinel lymph node biopsy, radiation therapy, and anastrozole. Five years after treatment, she developed new skin changes on her breast, including bruising and blistering following tanning bed use. Imaging studies showed diffuse skin thickening without discrete masses or lymphadenopathy. Biopsies confirmed the diagnosis of angiosarcoma. An extended mastectomy with wide surgical margins was performed. Pathological examination confirmed angiosarcoma with negative margins and no lymph node involvement. Additional excisions were undertaken to achieve 3 cm gross margins to ensure complete tumor removal due to the aggressive nature of the tumor. Patients presenting with new skin changes in previously irradiated areas, even many years after treatment, require careful evaluation. Nonspecific clinical and imaging findings necessitate prompt biopsy for accurate diagnosis. Surgical excision with wide margins remains the primary treatment modality, but standardized guidelines are lacking due to the rarity of RIAS. A multidisciplinary approach involving surgical oncology, pathology, radiology, and reconstructive surgery is essential for optimal patient management. Educating patients about potential late complications of radiation therapy and advising against additional risk factors, such as ultraviolet 2 exposure from tanning beds, are important. Further research is needed to establish evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of RIAS.
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.