{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.059153175591531756, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04794520547945205, 'mean_word_length': 5.157088122605364, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Predictors of an Invasive Breast Cancer Recurrence after DCIS: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses

We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses to summarize current knowledge on prognostic factors for invasive disease after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Eligible studies assessed risk of invasive recurrence in women primarily diagnosed and treated for DCIS and included at least 10 ipsilateral-invasive breast cancer events and 1 year of follow-up. Quality in Prognosis Studies tool was used for risk of bias assessment. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the average effect size of the prognostic factors. Of 1,781 articles reviewed, 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Highest risk of bias was attributable to insufficient handling of confounders and poorly described study groups. Six prognostic factors were statistically significant in the meta-analyses: African-American race [pooled estimate (ES), 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15–1.79], premenopausal status (ES, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.20–2.11), detection by palpation (ES, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.47–2.29), involved margins (ES, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.14–2.32), high histologic grade (ES, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04–1.77), and high p16 expression (ES, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04–2.19). Six prognostic factors associated with invasive recurrence were identified, whereas many other factors need confirmation in well-designed studies on large patient numbers. Furthermore, we identified frequently occurring biases in studies on invasive recurrence after DCIS. Avoiding these common methodological pitfalls can improve future study designs.