Setting a Research Agenda for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ That Meets the Current Need for Change
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Editorials1 April 2014Setting a Research Agenda for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ That Meets the Current Need for ChangeLaura Esserman, MD, MBA and Michael Alvarado, MDLaura Esserman, MD, MBAFrom University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. and Michael Alvarado, MDFrom University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0435 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established in 2010 by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The PCORI mission is to generate evidence-based information guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader health care community. An external advisory panel identified the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as a prime target for research because of uncertainty about the best options for care. The PCORI commissioned the Duke University Evidence Synthesis Group to bring stakeholders together to identify the most critical research questions related to DCIS, and the results of this effort appear in this issue (1).Why did ...References1. Gierisch JM, Myers ER, Schmit KM, Crowley MJ, McCrory DC, Chatterjee R, et al. Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:484-91. LinkGoogle Scholar2. Wells CJ, O'Donoghue C, Ojeda-Fournier H, Retallack HE, Esserman LJ. Evolving paradigm for imaging, diagnosis, and management of DCIS. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:918-23. [PMID: 24295941] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ, Sun P, To T, Narod SA. Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g366. [PMID: 24519768] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Esserman LJ, Shieh Y, Rutgers EJ, Knauer M, Retèl VP, Mook S, et al. Impact of mammographic screening on the detection of good and poor prognosis breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130:725-34. [PMID: 21892702] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA. 2013;310:797-8. [PMID: 23896967] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Li CI, Daling JR, Malone KE. Age-specific incidence rates of in situ breast carcinomas by histologic type, 1980 to 2001. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:1008-11. [PMID: 15824180] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Ozanne EM, Shieh Y, Barnes J, Bouzan C, Hwang ES, Esserman LJ. Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129:165-73. [PMID: 21390494] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Medications to decrease the risk for breast cancer in women: recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:698-708. [PMID: 24061412] AbstractGoogle Scholar9. Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, Fisher E, Margolese R, Dimitrov N, et al. Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1581-6. [PMID: 8292119] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Brønnum D, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:987-98. [PMID: 23484825] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Laura Esserman, MD, MBA; Michael Alvarado, MDAffiliations: From University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.Disclosures: None disclosed. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M14-0435.Corresponding Author: Laura Esserman, MD, MBA, Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, 1600 Divisadero Street, Box 1710, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115; e-mail, Laura.Esserman@ucsfmedctr.org.Current Author Addresses: Drs. Esserman and Alvarado: Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, 1600 Divisadero Street, Box 1710, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115.This article was published online first at www.annals.org on 25 February 2014. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoPrioritization of Research Addressing Management Strategies for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Jennifer M. Gierisch , Evan R. Myers , Kristine M. Schmit , Matthew J. Crowley , Douglas C. McCrory , Ranee Chatterjee , Remy R. Coeytaux , Amy Kendrick , and Gillian D. Sanders Metrics Cited byWhat quality-of-life issues do women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) consider important when making treatment decisions?MRI ductography of contrast agent distribution and leakage in normal mouse mammary ducts and ducts with in situ cancerPatient-reported outcomes in ductal carcinoma in situ: A systematic reviewNot all ductal carcinoma in situ is created equal: can we avoid surgery for low‐risk ductal carcinoma in situ ?Do LORIS Trial Eligibility Criteria Identify a Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Patient Population at Low Risk of Upgrade to Invasive Carcinoma?Molecular biology: Marked progressScreening Is Only Part of the Answer to Breast CancerRussell Harris, MD, MPH 1 April 2014Volume 160, Issue 7 Page: 511-512 Keywords Breast cancer Cancer prevention Cancer treatment Death rates Ductal carcinoma in situ Forecasting Lesions Lumpectomy Patient advocacy Research reporting guidelines ePublished: 1 April 2014 Issue Published: 1 April 2014 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2014 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,049 | 0,182 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,017 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».