The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nomogram for Predicting the Risk of Local Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: While the mortality associated with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is minimal, the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is relatively high. Radiation therapy (RT) and antiestrogen agents reduce the risk of IBTR and are considered standard treatment options after BCS. However, they have never been proven to improve survival, and in themselves carry rare but serious risks. Individualized estimation of IBTR risk would assist in decision making regarding the various treatment options for women with DCIS. Patients and Methods: From 1991 to 2006, 1,868 consecutive patients treated with BCS for DCIS were identified. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was constructed using the 1,681 in whom data were complete. Ten clinical, pathologic, and treatment variables were built into a nomogram estimating probability of IBTR at 5 and 10 years after BCS. The model was validated for discrimination and calibration using bootstrap resampling. Results: The DCIS nomogram for prediction of 5- and 10-year IBTR probabilities demonstrated good calibration and discrimination, with a concordance index of 0.704 (bootstrap corrected, 0.688) and a concordance probability estimate of 0.686. Factors with the greatest influence on risk of IBTR in the model included adjuvant RT or endocrine therapy, age, margin status, number of excisions, and treatment time period. Conclusion: The DCIS nomogram integrates 10 clinicopathologic variables to provide an individualized risk estimate of IBTR in a woman with DCIS treated with BCS. This tool may assist in individual decision making regarding various treatment options and help avoid over- and undertreatment of noninvasive breast cancer.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., & Thun, M. J. (2009) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20006 · Cited by 9,709
Cited by
Predicting Low Accrual in the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Group Clinical Trials
Bennette, C. S., Ramsey, S. D., McDermott, C. L., Carlson, J. J., Basu, A., & Veenstra, D. L. (2016) · Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djv324 · Cited by 108
MOHANTY, S., MOHANTY, P., DI BIASE, L., BAI, R., TRIVEDI, C., SANTANGELI, P., SANTORO, F., HONGO, R., HAO, S., BEHEIRY, S., et al. (2014) · Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology · doi:10.1111/jce.12468 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Rudloff, U., Jacks, L. M., Goldberg, J. I., Wynveen, C. A., Brogi, E., Patil, S., & Van Zee, K. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2010-08-10
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 3762-3769
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2153453882
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Nomogram for Predicting the Risk of Local Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2009.26.8847
- The paper
- Rudloff, U., Jacks, L. M., Goldberg, J. I., Wynveen, C. A., Brogi, E., Patil, S., & Van Zee, K. J. (2010). Nomogram for Predicting the Risk of Local Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.26.8847
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.