| Title |
Clinicopathologic characteristics and molecular subtypes of microinvasive carcinoma of the breast
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-014-2652-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li Wang, Wei Zhang, Shuhua Lyu, Xia Liu, Tongxian Zhang, Shan Liu, Ying Qin, Xiaoqi Tian, Yun Niu |
| Abstract |
Patients with microinvasive carcinoma often have favorable prognosis, but it remains unclear whether this special type of breast cancer represents a distinct morphological entity with its own biological features and clinical behavior distinct from those of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The study is a retrospective analysis of a large patient cohort from a single institution. One hundred and thirty one microinvasive carcinoma and 451 DCIS cases were collected. ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 were examined by immunohistochemistry in pathological sections. We assessed the clinicopathologic characteristics, molecular features, and survival status of microinvasive carcinoma and compared to those of DCIS. Microinvasive carcinoma differed from DCIS with respect to tumor size, lymph node status, and initial presentation (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference in nuclear grade among microinvasive carcinoma of different molecular subtype (P < 0.05). The clinicalpathologic features and outcomes of patients with microinvasive carcinoma were similar to those with DCIS. The 5-year OS rate for microinvasive carcinoma and DCIS patients was 99.0 and 99.2 %, respectively. A combination of pathologic, clinical, and molecular factors may ultimately reveal more powerful and robust measures for disease classification than any one modality alone. Microinvasive carcinoma does not significantly predict for worse DFS or OS in comparison with patients with DCIS. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 50% |
| Paraguay | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,736,380
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#893
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,839
of 263,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#36
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 263,362 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 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.