ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2006
Discrepancies in the diagnosis of intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast and its management implications: results of a multinational survey.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning-based image analysis for accelerating the diagnosis of complicated preneoplastic and neoplastic ductal lesions in breast biopsy tissues.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Atypical ductal hyperplasia: update on diagnosis, management, and molecular landscape.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2018Review
- Histological features associated with diagnostic agreement in atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: illustrative cases from the B-Path study.Histopathology · 2016Article
- Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel.Histopathology · 2014Article
- Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia at the Margin of Lumpectomy Performed for Early Stage Breast Cancer: Is there Enough Evidence to Formulate Guidelines?International journal of surgical oncology · 2012Article
- [Practical problems in breast screening. Columnar cell lesions including flat epithelial atypia and lobular neoplasia].Der Pathologe · 2008Review
- Lobular and ductal intraepithelial neoplasia.Der Pathologe · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To measure discrepancies in diagnoses and recommendations impacting management of proliferative lesions of the breast, a questionnaire of five problem scenarios was distributed among over 300 practicing pathologists. Of the 230 respondents, 56.5% considered a partial cribriform proliferation within a duct adjacent to unequivocal ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), 37.7% of whom recommended reexcision if it were at a resection margin. Of the 43.5% who diagnosed the partially involved duct as DCIS, 28.0% would not recommend reexcision if the lesion were at a margin. When only five ducts had a partial cribriform proliferation, 35.7% considered it as DCIS, while if >or=20 ducts were so involved, this figure rose to 60.4%. When one duct with a complete cribriform pattern measured 0.5, 1.5, or 4 mm, a diagnosis of DCIS was made by 22.6, 31.3, and 94.8%, respectively. When multiple ducts with flat epithelial atypia were at a margin, 20.9% recommended reexcision. Much of these discrepancies arise from the artificial separation of ADH and low-grade DCIS and emphasize the need for combining these two under the umbrella designation of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (DIN 1) to diminish the impact of different terminologies applied to biologically similar lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.