{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,14]],"date-time":"2025-05-14T04:16:55Z","timestamp":1747196215335,"version":"3.40.5"},"reference-count":9,"publisher":"Public Library of Science (PLoS)","issue":"6","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,6]],"date-time":"2022-06-06T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1654473600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"name":"Dutch Cancer Foundation","award":["SLP2015-7769"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["SLP2015-7769"]}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["www.plosone.org"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["PLoS ONE"],"abstract":"<jats:sec id=\"sec001\">\n<jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>There is a large variation between Dutch hospitals in the use of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) in patients with a biopsy diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. The aim of our study was to investigate whether this variation might be explained by preferences of surgeons, organisational factors or the influence of patients preferences.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec id=\"sec002\">\n<jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>A cross-sectional web survey was conducted among 260 Dutch oncological\/breast surgeons. Preferences of surgeons and the influence of the patients\u2019 preferences were determined by means of best-worst scaling (BWS) of profile case scenarios and by ranking risk factors. The survey also explored organisational questions, the reported use of diagnostic techniques and influences on the decision.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec id=\"sec003\">\n<jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The BWS scenarios were completed by 57 surgeons. The most important reasons for performing SLNB were a suspected invasive component and DCIS grade 3. In the ranking, these were also the first and second most important factor, followed by the size of the lesion and a mass on mammogram. In 58% to 70% of the scenarios, the surgeons would not change their decisions on the use of SLNB if the patient\u2019s chose differed. No organisational factor was significantly associated with the reported use of SLNB.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec id=\"sec004\">\n<jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The inter-hospital variation in the use of SLNB could not be attributed to organisational factors or surgeons\u2019 preferences for risk factors. The risk factors that most surgeons reported as reasons for performing SLNB are consistent with the factors described in the Dutch treatment guideline for the use of SLNB.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0269551","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,6]],"date-time":"2022-06-06T17:24:11Z","timestamp":1654536251000},"page":"e0269551","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.corrections_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Surgeons\u2019 preferences for using sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ"],"prefix":"10.1371","volume":"17","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-8643-3717","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Claudia J. C.","family":"Meurs","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-5416-5893","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Janine A. van","family":"Til","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Marian B. E.","family":"Menke-Pluijmers","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Stefanie de","family":"Vet","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Sabine","family":"Siesling","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Pieter J.","family":"Westenend","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"340","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,6]]},"reference":[{"key":"pone.0269551.ref001","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"119","DOI":"10.1148\/radiol.11102368","article-title":"Ductal Carcinoma in Situ at core-Needle Biopsy: Meta-Analysis of Underestimation and Predictors of Invasive Breast Cancer","volume":"260","author":"ME Brennan","year":"2011","journal-title":"Radiology"},{"key":"pone.0269551.ref002","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"635","DOI":"10.1016\/j.breast.2012.06.009","article-title":"Predictors of invasive breast cancer and lymph node involvement in ductal carcinoma in situ initially diagnosed by vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: Experience of 733 cases","volume":"21","author":"C Trentin","year":"2012","journal-title":"Breast"},{"key":"pone.0269551.ref003","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1155","DOI":"10.1038\/s41416-018-0276-6","article-title":"A prediction model for underestimation of invasive breast cancer after a biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: based on 2892 biopsies and 589 invasive cancers","volume":"119","author":"CJC Meurs","year":"2018","journal-title":"Br J Cancer"},{"key":"pone.0269551.ref004","unstructured":"Nationaal Borstkanker Overleg Nederland (NABON). Dutch Breast Cancer Guideline, DCIS 2017. https:\/\/www.lrcb.nl\/resources\/uploads\/2017\/02\/Richtlijn-Mammacarcinoom.pdf (accessed March, 2022)."},{"key":"pone.0269551.ref005","unstructured":"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and management (Guideline NG101) 2018. https:\/\/www.nice.org.uk\/guidance\/ng101\/chapter\/Recommendations#surgery-to-the-breast (accessed December 10, 2018)."},{"key":"pone.0269551.ref006","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"63","DOI":"10.1016\/j.breast.2013.11.001","article-title":"Time trends and inter-hospital variation in treatment and axillary staging of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the era of screening in Southern Netherlands","volume":"23","author":"LN Van Steenbergen","year":"2013","journal-title":"Breast"},{"key":"pone.0269551.ref007","article-title":"A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey of UK Breast Surgeons\u2019 Views on the Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ","author":"GS Mannu","year":"2015","journal-title":"Int J Breast Cancer"},{"key":"pone.0269551.ref008","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1153","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejso.2016.05.024","article-title":"Variation in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ in the UK: Results of the Mammary Fold National Practice Survey","volume":"42","author":"S Potter","year":"2016","journal-title":"Eur J Surg"},{"key":"pone.0269551.ref009","first-page":"1","article-title":"Variations in the management of the axilla in screen-detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Evidence from the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme audit of screen detected DCIS","volume":"41","author":"S Nicholson","year":"2014","journal-title":"Eur J Surg Oncol"}],"container-title":["PLOS ONE"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/dx.plos.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0269551","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,6]],"date-time":"2022-06-06T17:24:30Z","timestamp":1654536270000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/dx.plos.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0269551"}},"subtitle":[],"editor":[{"given":"James A.L.","family":"Brown","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"editor","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,6]]},"references-count":9,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,6]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0269551","relation":{},"ISSN":["1932-6203"],"issn-type":[{"type":"electronic","value":"1932-6203"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,6]]}}}