Is palpable DCIS more aggressive than screen-detected DCIS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palpable ductal carcinoma in-situ (pDCIS) is a subset of DCIS presenting with a clinical mass. We hypothesized pDCIS would have more aggressive clinical and pathological features, and higher rates of recurrence and upgrade to invasive disease compared to screen-detected DCIS. We performed a retrospective analysis of female patients (age 28–76) with DCIS on core-needle biopsy. pDCIS patients had a physician documented palpable mass prior to initial biopsy. Descriptive statistics were performed to compare groups. This study included 83 patients, 26 had pDCIS and 57 had screen-detected DCIS. Mean duration of follow-up was 49.4 months. pDCIS patients had significantly larger lesions (p = 0.03) which were more frequently biopsied via ultrasound (p = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, pDCIS was associated with ultrasound guided core needle biopsy, size of DCIS >2 cm, and comedo pattern (p = 0.001, p = 0.007 and p = 0.022, respectively). 7.7 % of pDCIS cases versus 3.5 % of screen-detected cases were upgraded to invasive cancer (p = 0.59). There was no difference in local recurrence (p = 0.55) between groups. Neither group experienced regional or distant recurrence. pDCIS was associated with some aggressive pathologic and clinical features and was more frequently diagnosed by ultrasound guided core-needle biopsy than screen-detected DCIS. However, there was no significant difference in rate of recurrence or upgrade to invasive disease between groups. Although pDCIS was associated with some aggressive pathologic and clinical features, there was no significant difference in rate of recurrence or upgrade to invasive disease compared to screen-detected DCIS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".