ReviewPlastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.)2014
Is routine pathological evaluation of tissue from gynecomastia necessary? A 15-year retrospective pathological and literature review.
Review in Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Invasive lobular carcinoma of the male breast - a systematic review with an illustrative case study.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2017Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo reconsider the routine plastic surgical practice of requesting histopathological evaluation of tissue from gynecomastia.
methodThe present study was a retrospective histopathological review (15-year period [1996 to 2012]) involving gynecomastia tissue samples received at the pathology laboratory in the Saskatoon Health Region (Saskatchewan). The Laboratory Information System (LIS) identified all specimens using the key search words "gynecomastia", "gynaecomastia", "gynecomazia" and "gynaecomazia". A literature review to identify all cases of incidentally discovered malignancies in gynecomastia tissue specimens over a 15-year period (1996 to present) was undertaken.
resultsThe 15-year LIS search detected a total of 452 patients that included two cases of pseudogynecomastia (0.4%). Patients' age ranged from five to 92 years and 43% of the cases were bilateral (28% left sided, 29% right sided). The weight of the specimens received ranged from 0.2 g to 1147.2 g. All cases showed no significant histopathological concerns. The number of tissue blocks sampled ranged from one to 42, averaging four blocks/case (approximately $105/case), resulting in a cost of approximately $3,200/year, with a 15-year expenditure of approximately $48,000. The literature review identified a total of 15 incidental findings: ductal carcinoma in situ (12 cases), atypical ductal hyperplasia (two cases) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (one case).
conclusionsIn the context of evidence-based literature, and because no significant pathological findings were detected in this particular cohort of 452 cases with 2178 slides, the authors believe it is time to re-evaluate whether routine histopathological examination of tissue from gynecomastia remains necessary. The current climate of health care budget fiscal restraints warrants reassessment of the current policies and practices of sending tissue samples of gynecomastia incurring negative productivity costs on routine histopathological examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25114624PMC4116310W108946148What 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.