ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2025
Treatment and Outcome of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ for the German Federal States Berlin and Brandenburg in the Period 2007-2020.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the female breast is treated with surgery possibly followed by radiotherapy (RT) and/or adjuvant hormonal therapy despite their known long-term side effects. Since not every DCIS will progress into an invasive breast cancer (IBC), disease progression and de-escalation of treatment is an important topic of current research. Methods: During 2007-2020, 3905 individuals with a DCIS diagnosis were reported to the cancer registry of Brandenburg and Berlin. We selected 3424 women who were cancer-free prior to DCIS diagnosis and without synchronous diagnoses of DCIS or ipsilateral IBC (iIBC). The objective was to describe changes over time in DCIS treatment and risk of developing iIBC by treatment. Results: We observed decreasing proportions of mastectomy, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with RT, and standard versus hypofractionated RT over time. During a median follow-up of 3.8 years, 105 women developed iIBC. Compared with BCS + RT with standard fractionation (54.9%, 1878/3424, 53 iIBC events), hazard ratios (HR) for ilBC were 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26, 1.99; 4 events) for BCS + hypofractionated RT, 0.70 (95% CI 0.33, 1.41; 11 events) for BCS alone, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.50, 1.37; 26 events) for mastectomy. Analyses were adjusted for DCIS size, grade, residual tumor status and ECOG score. Conclusion: We observed a de-escalation of treatment over time, with fewer mastectomies, less RT, and more hypofractionation of RT. No substantial differences in risk of iIBC were observed between these treatments. There is a need to evaluate DCIS treatment de-escalation in larger cohorts with longer follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.