Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Between 8% and 56% of pure ductal carcinoma in situ are upstaged to microinvasive or invasive carcinoma on definitive pathological examination. The first objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive review of the literature on factors associated with increased risk of pre-operative underestimation. The second objective was to perform an external validation of the predictive models developed to enable their use in daily practice if relevant.
Materials And Methods: A literature search using Medline was undertaken. For each model selected, external validation within the study cohort was undertaken. The study cohort consisted of patients with histologically proven ductal carcinoma in situ who underwent surgical treatment at a French referral centre for cancer treatment between January 2007 and November 2018.
Results: Two hundred and thirteen articles were identified; of these, 34 articles focused on factors associated with pre-operative underestimation of invasive carcinoma, 11 studies were identified as predictive models, and three studies were selected for external validation within the study cohort. Four hundred and eighty-eight eligible patients were identified in the study cohort, with an underestimation rate of 9.2%. The Jakub nomogram concordance index was 0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.51], the Park nomogram concordance index was 0.57 (95% CI 0.48-0.55), and the Coufal nomogram concordance index was 0.52 (95% CI 0.48-0.55).
Conclusion: While the literature is rich on this topic, this review clearly highlights the lack of consensus regarding parameters associated with underestimation. It was not possible to validate previously published models for use in daily practice.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.01.026 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!