↓ Skip to main content

Trends in adjuvant therapies after breast-conserving surgery for hormone receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the National Cancer Database, 2004–2013

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Trends in adjuvant therapies after breast-conserving surgery for hormone receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the National Cancer Database, 2004–2013
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10549-017-4436-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasuaki Sagara, Rachel A. Freedman, Stephanie M. Wong, Fatih Aydogan, Anvy Nguyen, William T. Barry, Mehra Golshan

Abstract

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by radiotherapy (RT) with or without endocrine therapy (ET) is a standard treatment option for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We sought to investigate national patterns in the use of adjuvant therapy after BCS for hormone receptor (HR)-positive DCIS over time. Using data from the National Cancer Data Base, we identified patients diagnosed with DCIS and treated with BCS between 2004 and 2013. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of adjuvant therapy use controlling for clinicopathologic demographic and facility-level characteristics. We identified 66,079 patients who underwent BCS for DCIS. Overall, 21% received no adjuvant treatment, 71% received RT, 48% received ET, and 38% received the combination therapy. In adjusted analyses among the patients with HR-positive DCIS (n = 50,147), the administration of RT decreased (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.97), while the use of ET increased (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.6) in 2013 compared to 2004. Young patients, elderly patients, positive margin status, and Medicare insurance were associated with lower use of both RT and ET. We observed both clinicopathologic and geographic variation in the use of adjuvant therapies. In the lowest risk subgroup, the use of RT decreased from 57% in 2004 to 48% in 2013 (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.89). Our study suggests a shift in patterns of care for DCIS that is impacted by both clinicopathologic and demographic factors, with the use of RT decreasing and the use of ET increasing in HR-positive DCIS patients. Current trials are designed to address the possible over-treatment of low-risk DCIS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 23%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,490,144
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#2,918
of 4,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,332
of 317,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#44
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,677 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 317,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.