Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40715630›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025

Patient-reported Outcomes After Routine Treatment of In Situ/Atypical Lesions: The PORTAL Study.

Shoshana M Rosenberg, Christel Rushing, Kristin L Schreiber, Kerri-Anne Crowell, Isabelle Bedrosian, Kevin S Hughes, Thomas Lynch, Desiree Basila, Deborah Collyar, Elizabeth S Frank and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Shoshana M RosenbergDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. shr4009@med.cornell.edu.
Christel RushingDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Kristin L SchreiberBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Kerri-Anne CrowellDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Isabelle BedrosianUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Kevin S HughesMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Thomas LynchDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Desiree BasilaPatient Leadership Team, PORTAL Study, Boston, MA, USA.
Deborah CollyarPatient Leadership Team, PORTAL Study, Boston, MA, USA.
Elizabeth S FrankDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Sonja DaraiDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Conor LanahanMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeffrey R MarksDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Jennifer K PlichtaDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Terry HyslopDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Alastair M ThompsonBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Ann H Partridge *Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
E Shelley Hwang *Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) CER-1503-29572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuideline concordant care (GCC) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) includes some combination of surgery, radiation, and/or endocrine treatment. Active monitoring (AM) is a common approach for high-risk breast histologies (e.g., atypical ductal hyperplasia [ADH] lobular intraepithelial neoplasias [LIN]) and has been proposed as an alternative to GCC for some low-risk DCIS. We compared patient-reported outcomes in women with DCIS who received GCC with those with other high-risk breast histologies in an active monitoring-proxy group (AM-P).

methodsWomen diagnosed with DCIS (GCC) or ADH/LIN (AM-P) from 2012 to 2017 at four cancer centers were surveyed regarding surgical-area pain, severity, and burden, generalized pain, anxiety, depression, and quality of life (QOL). The primary comparison was GCC versus AM-P. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model odds of reporting surgical-area pain. Multivariable marginal zero-inflated negative binomial models estimated mean scores and differences by group.

resultsA total of 912 women completed the survey (GCC, n = 538; AM-P, n = 374). At a median of 45.4 months following diagnosis, the AM-P group had lower odds of pain in the past month (0.35, 95% CI 0.25-0.49) and clinically significant pain (0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.68). Adjusted mean pain severity index, surgical area sensory disturbance, pain-related cognitive/emotional impact scores were lower in the AM-P versus GCC group. Generalized pain, QOL, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were similar between groups.

conclusionsWomen with DCIS treated with GCC experienced more breast/chest wall pain than women in the AM-P group, although QOL was similar. Understanding these trade-offs can inform surgical de-escalation for high-risk lesions, including low-risk DCIS.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCarcinoma, LobularPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeWatchful WaitingAdultAgedAnxietyDepressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisActive monitoringAtypical ductal hyperplasiaDuctal carcinoma in situLobular intraepithelial neoplasiaPainPatient-reported outcomesQuality of lifeSurgery

Identifiers

PMID40715630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.