↓ Skip to main content

Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ according to breast cancer subtypes: a population-based cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ according to breast cancer subtypes: a population-based cohort study
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10549-016-3862-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shusma C. Doebar, Esther C. van den Broek, Linetta B. Koppert, Agnes Jager, Margreet. H. A. Baaijens, Inge-Marie A. M. Obdeijn, Carolien H. M. van Deurzen

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a precursor of invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). The DCIS component is often more extensive than the invasive component, which affects local control. The aim of our study was to analyze features of DCIS within different IBC subtypes, which may contribute to the optimization of personalized approaches for patients with IBC. Patients with IBC reported according to the synoptic reporting module in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2015 were included. Data extraction included characteristics of the invasive component and, if present, several features of the DCIS component. Resection margin status analyses were restricted to patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Differences between subtypes were tested by a Chi-square test, spearman's Rho test or a one-way ANOVA test. Overall, 36.937 cases of IBC were included. About half of the IBCs (n = 16.014; 43.4 %) were associated with DCIS. Her2+ IBC (irrespective of ER status) was associated with a higher prevalence of adjacent DCIS, a larger extent of DCIS and a higher rate of irradicality of the DCIS component as compared to ER+/Her2- and triple-negative subtypes (P < 0.0001 for all variables). The prevalence of DCIS in triple-negative IBC on the other hand was lowest. In this large population-based cohort study, we showed significant differences between the prevalence and extent of DCIS according to IBC subtypes, which is also reflected in the resection margin status in patients treated with BCS. Our data provide important information regarding the optimization of local therapy according to IBC subtypes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 21%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 34%
Unspecified 8 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2016.
All research outputs
#10,932,246
of 12,334,049 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#2,722
of 3,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,286
of 271,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#78
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,334,049 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.