ReviewInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2014
Malignant myoepithelioma of the breast: a case report and review of literature.
Review in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pleomorphic adenoma in tonsil.Journal of surgical case reports · 2023Article
- A case of adenomyoepithelioma with myoepithelial carcinoma of the breast.Clinical case reports · 2019Article
- Malignant myoepithelioma of the breast: A case report and review of the literature.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, we described a malignant myoepithelioma of the breast (MMB) in a 69-year-old woman. Breast cancer derived from myoepithelial cells is very rare, usually benign. The diagnosis of MMB based on histological and immunohistochemical finding. In this case, the author diagnosed the tumor as MMB, because tumor tissues were immunopositive for 34βE12, P63, SMA, S-100, CD10, E-Cad and Ki-67, and immunnegative for CK5/6, desmin, ER, PR and C-erbB-2, because tumor tissue showed invasive growth and local hemorrhage or necrosis, suggesting malignant, and also because there was a transition between the tumor cells and hyperplastic myoepithelium of non-tumorous ducts. The patient's postoperative recovery is smooth and regular following of patient is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24966981PMC4069952W204866111What 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.