ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Complete disappearance of ductal carcinoma
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and importance: Ductal carcinoma Case presentation: A 51-year-old woman presented with a right breast mass, clustered microcalcifications, biopsy-proven axillary nodal metastasis, and a suspicious subclavicular node. Core needle biopsy of the breast showed high-grade DCIS with focal suspicious microinvasion and an HR-negative/HER2-positive phenotype. She received anthracycline- and taxane-based NAT with anti-HER2 therapy, followed by a right modified radical mastectomy and nodal dissection. Final pathology demonstrated no residual invasive carcinoma, no residual DCIS in the breast, and no residual nodal disease, consistent with a pathological complete response. Clinical discussion: This finding should not be interpreted as definitive evidence that DCIS itself is chemosensitive. In the present case, the disappearance of the DCIS component may have resulted from a bystander effect after the disruption of the ductal barrier by microinvasive or unsampled invasive disease. In addition, persistent post-NAT microcalcifications on mammography did not indicate viable residual tumor, highlighting the risk of overtreatment when the surgical extent is determined primarily by residual calcifications. Conclusion: This case underscores three clinically relevant points: nodal metastasis in biopsy-diagnosed DCIS/ductal carcinoma
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.