↓ Skip to main content

Clinical risk score to predict likelihood of recurrence after ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Clinical risk score to predict likelihood of recurrence after ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10549-017-4553-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rinaa S. Punglia, Wei Jiang, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Melissa E. Hughes, Stuart J. Schnitt, Michael J. Hassett, Larissa Nekhlyudov, Ninah Achacoso, Stephen Edge, Sara H. Javid, Joyce C. Niland, Richard L. Theriault, Yu-Ning Wong, Laurel A. Habel

Abstract

A majority of women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) receive breast-conserving surgery (BCS) but then face a risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) which can be either recurrence of DCIS or invasive breast cancer. We developed a score to provide individualized information about IBTR risk to guide treatment decisions. Data from 2762 patients treated with BCS for DCIS at centers within the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) were used to identify statistically significant non-treatment-related predictors for 5-year IBTR. Factors most associated with IBTR were estrogen-receptor status of the DCIS, presence of comedo necrosis, and patient age at diagnosis. These three parameters were used to create a point-based risk score. Discrimination of this score was assessed in a separate DCIS population of 301 women (100 with IBTR and 200 without) from Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Using NCCN data, the 5-year likelihood of IBTR without adjuvant therapy was 9% (95% CI 5-12%), 23% (95% CI 13-32%), and 51% (95% CI 26-75%) in the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. Addition of the risk score to a model including only treatment improved the C-statistic from 0.69 to 0.74 (improvement of 0.05). Cross-validation of the score resulted in a C-statistic of 0.76. The score had a c-statistic of 0.67 using the KPNC data, revealing that it discriminated well. This simple, no-cost risk score may be used by patients and physicians to facilitate preference-based decision-making about DCIS management informed by a more accurate understanding of risks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Researcher 11 14%
Other 10 13%
Student > Master 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 32%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 24 30%
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 14 February 2018.
All research outputs
#12,862,694
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#2,802
of 4,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,080
of 328,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#30
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,681 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 328,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.