Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 318

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 access
Rudloff, Udo, Jacks, Lindsay M., Goldberg, Jessica I., Wynveen, Christine A., Brogi, Edi, Patil, Sujata, Van Zee, Kimberly J.·2010·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2009.26.8847

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 318

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.