↓ Skip to main content

Trends in the Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast

Overview of attention for article published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, March 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
277 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Trends in the Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast
Published in
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, March 2004
DOI 10.1093/jnci/djh069
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. N. Baxter, B. A. Virnig, S. B. Durham, T. M. Tuttle

Abstract

An increase in incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast has been documented, and concerns regarding overly aggressive treatment have been raised. This study was designed to evaluate the use of surgery and radiation therapy in treating DCIS. We used the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to assess treatment of patients with DCIS with no evidence of microinvasion who were diagnosed from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1999. We assessed the rates of mastectomy, breast reconstruction, radiation therapy after lumpectomy, and axillary dissection. Associations were analyzed by logistic regression. During the study period, 25 206 patients met selection criteria. The incidence of DCIS dramatically increased with time; however, the incidence of comedo lesions did not change. The rate of mastectomy decreased from 43% in 1992 to 28% in 1999, after controlling for age, race, tumor size, comedo histology, and geographic location. However, because of the increase in the diagnosis of DCIS, the age-adjusted incidence of mastectomy for DCIS in the population did not change (7.8 per 100 000 women in 1992 and 1999). Almost half the patients undergoing lumpectomy did not undergo radiation therapy (55% in 1992 and 46% in 1999); in those with comedo histology, 33% did not undergo radiation therapy after lumpectomy, even in 1999. Overall, patients were less likely to have axillary dissection over time (34% in 1992 versus 15% in 1999), yet the rate of axillary dissection was still high (30%) in patients undergoing mastectomy in 1999. Large, statistically and clinically significant variation by geographic location was found in treatment. Treatment of DCIS changed in a clinically significant fashion between 1992 and 1999. Throughout this study, many patients were found to undergo aggressive surgical therapy, including mastectomy and axillary dissection, whereas others appeared to be undertreated, e.g., not receiving radiation therapy after lumpectomy, even in the presence of adverse histologic features. Variation in demographic and geographic factors indicates that at least some of these treatment differences reflect individual and institutional practice patterns that may be modifiable.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 20%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Other 7 7%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 12%
Unspecified 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 14 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,043,424
of 12,028,010 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#1,847
of 6,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,135
of 326,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#39
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,028,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 326,918 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.