ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2008
Radial scar-significant diagnostic challenge.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Benign Breast Diseases With or Without Atypical Epithelial Hyperplasia Accompanying Radial Scars.European journal of breast health · 2023Article
- B3 Lesions: Radiological Assessment and Multi-Disciplinary Aspects.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of radial scar (RS) is 0.04% in asymptomatic women participating in population screening for breast cancer. It is important to differentiate RS from concomitant malignancies, which occur in 20-30% of patients, or from small stellate carcinomas which give similar radiomorphology. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectivity of current breast diagnostic methods in distinguishing between real RS, concomitant malignancy and carcinomas imitating RS. Diagnosis of RS was set up in 61 cases by mammography. Forty-four patients underwent surgical excision: histology showed benign or malignant lesions in 28 and 16 cases, respectively. A series of negative results at follow-up proved the benign nature of the lesion in further 11 cases. Six patients were not available for follow-up. Results of mammography, physical examination, ultrasonography and cytology were evaluated and were compared in 39 benign and 16 malignant cases. Results of examinations were reported on the BI-RADS scale ranging from 1 to 5. The mean categorical scores of all diagnostic processes were around the level of borderline lesions: mammography: 3.49, ultrasonography: 3.06, cytology: 2.47 and physical examination: 1.67. The average age of the patients in the benign and malignant groups were the same: 58 years. The two groups did not differ significantly over either distribution of coded mammographical results (p = 0.2092), or the distribution of mammographical parenchyma density patterns (p = 0.4875). However, the malignant and benign groups differed significantly from each other over the distribution of coded ultrasonographic (p = 0.0176) and cytological (p < 0.0001) results. In conclusion, in the preoperative diagnosis of asymptomatic "black-stars", mammography detects the non-palpable lesions, and ultrasonography together with cytology proved better in the analysis, provided FNAB is US guided. Due to the complex diagnostic approach the nature of the "black stars" is known in the majority of cases prior to the surgical biopsy.
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.