Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 608

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: A Systematic Review of Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes

Virnig, B. A., Tuttle, T. M., Shamliyan, T., Kane, R. L.·2010·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health Office of Medical Applications of Research commissioned a structured literature review on the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as a background article for the State of the Science Conference on Diagnosis and Management of DCIS. METHODS: Published studies were identified and abstracted from MEDLINE and other sources. We include articles published between 1965 and January 31, 2009; 374 publications were identified that addressed DCIS incidence, staging, treatment, and outcomes in adult women. RESULTS: In the United States, DCIS incidence rose from 1.87 per 100 000 in 1973-1975 to 32.5 in 2004. Incidence increased in all ages but more so in women older than 50 years. Increased use of mammography explains some but not all of the increased incidence. Risk factors for incident DCIS include older age and family history. Although tamoxifen treatment prevented both invasive breast cancer and DCIS, raloxifene treatment decreased incidence of invasive breast cancer but not DCIS. Among patients with DCIS, magnetic resonance imaging was more sensitive than mammography for detecting multicentric disease and estimating tumor size. Because about 15% of patients with DCIS identified on core needle biopsy are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer after excision or mastectomy, the accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy after excision is relevant to surgical management of DCIS. Most studies demonstrated that sentinel lymph node biopsy is feasible after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Younger age, positive surgical margins, tumor size and grade, and comedo necrosis were consistently related to DCIS recurrence. DCIS outcomes after either mastectomy or BCS plus radiation therapy were superior to BCS alone. Tamoxifen treatment after DCIS diagnosis reduced risk of recurrent disease. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific questions deserving further investigation include the relationship between mammography use and DCIS incidence and whether imaging technologies and treatment guidelines can be modified to focus on lesions that are most likely to become clinically problematic.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djp482

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 608

Metadata

Authors
Virnig, B. A., Tuttle, T. M., Shamliyan, T., & Kane, R. L.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2010-01-13
Volume
102
Issue
3
Pages
170-178
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2126212561
Cited by
608
References
50
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: A Systematic Review of Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djp482
The paper
Virnig, B. A., Tuttle, T. M., Shamliyan, T., & Kane, R. L. (2010). Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: A Systematic Review of Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp482

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.