↓ Skip to main content

Genetic predisposition to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genetic predisposition to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13058-016-0675-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christos Petridis, Mark N. Brook, Vandna Shah, Kelly Kohut, Patricia Gorman, Michele Caneppele, Dina Levi, Efterpi Papouli, Nick Orr, Angela Cox, Simon S. Cross, Isabel dos-Santos-Silva, Julian Peto, Anthony Swerdlow, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Manjeet K. Bolla, Qin Wang, Joe Dennis, Kyriaki Michailidou, Javier Benitez, Anna González-Neira, Daniel C. Tessier, Daniel Vincent, Jingmei Li, Jonine Figueroa, Vessela Kristensen, Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale, Penny Soucy, Jacques Simard, Roger L. Milne, Graham G. Giles, Sara Margolin, Annika Lindblom, Thomas Brüning, Hiltrud Brauch, Melissa C. Southey, John L. Hopper, Thilo Dörk, Natalia V. Bogdanova, Maria Kabisch, Ute Hamann, Rita K. Schmutzler, Alfons Meindl, Hermann Brenner, Volker Arndt, Robert Winqvist, Katri Pylkäs, Peter A. Fasching, Matthias W. Beckmann, Jan Lubinski, Anna Jakubowska, Anna Marie Mulligan, Irene L. Andrulis, Rob A. E. M. Tollenaar, Peter Devilee, Loic Le Marchand, Christopher A. Haiman, Arto Mannermaa, Veli-Matti Kosma, Paolo Radice, Paolo Peterlongo, Frederik Marme, Barbara Burwinkel, Carolien H. M. van Deurzen, Antoinette Hollestelle, Nicola Miller, Michael J. Kerin, Diether Lambrechts, Giuseppe Floris, Jelle Wesseling, Henrik Flyger, Stig E. Bojesen, Song Yao, Christine B. Ambrosone, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Thérèse Truong, Pascal Guénel, Anja Rudolph, Jenny Chang-Claude, Heli Nevanlinna, Carl Blomqvist, Kamila Czene, Judith S. Brand, Janet E. Olson, Fergus J. Couch, Alison M. Dunning, Per Hall, Douglas F. Easton, Paul D. P. Pharoah, Sarah E. Pinder, Marjanka K Schmidt, Ian Tomlinson, Rebecca Roylance, Montserrat García-Closas, Elinor J. Sawyer

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive form of breast cancer. It is often associated with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and is considered to be a non-obligate precursor of IDC. It is not clear to what extent these two forms of cancer share low-risk susceptibility loci, or whether there are differences in the strength of association for shared loci. To identify genetic polymorphisms that predispose to DCIS, we pooled data from 38 studies comprising 5,067 cases of DCIS, 24,584 cases of IDC and 37,467 controls, all genotyped using the iCOGS chip. Most (67 %) of the 76 known breast cancer predisposition loci showed an association with DCIS in the same direction as previously reported for invasive breast cancer. Case-only analysis showed no evidence for differences between associations for IDC and DCIS after considering multiple testing. Analysis by estrogen receptor (ER) status confirmed that loci associated with ER positive IDC were also associated with ER positive DCIS. Analysis of DCIS by grade suggested that two independent SNPs at 11q13.3 near CCND1 were specific to low/intermediate grade DCIS (rs75915166, rs554219). These associations with grade remained after adjusting for ER status and were also found in IDC. We found no novel DCIS-specific loci at a genome wide significance level of P < 5.0x10(-8). In conclusion, this study provides the strongest evidence to date of a shared genetic susceptibility for IDC and DCIS. Studies with larger numbers of DCIS are needed to determine if IDC or DCIS specific loci exist.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 103 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Other 10 10%
Professor 7 7%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 21 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 24 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,222,354
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#335
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,133
of 311,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#15
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 311,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 58% of its contemporaries.