ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Diagnostic underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ at percutaneous core needle and vacuum-assisted biopsies of the breast in a Brazilian reference institution.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy vs core needle biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Breast Cancer Screening: Updated Recommendations of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Breast Disease Society, and Brazilian Federation of Gynecological and Obstetrical Associations.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2017Guideline
- Comparison study between stereotactic versus digital breast tomosynthesis-guided core needle biopsy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Practical Challenges of DBT-Guided VABB: Harms and Benefits, from Literature to Clinical Experience.Cancers · 2023Article
- Breast microcalcifications: Past, present and future (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of tomosynthesis-guided vacuum assisted breast biopsy of ultrasound occult lesions.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Atypical ductal hyperplasia and the risk of underestimation: tissue sampling method, multifocality, and associated calcification significantly influence the diagnostic upgrade rate based on subsequent surgical specimens.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2019Article
- Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Review
- Computed tomography-guided preoperative localization of musculoskeletal lesions using the ROLL technique.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
- Computed tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy of abdominal lesions: indications, techniques, results, and complications.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
- Suspicious amorphous microcalcifications detected on full-field digital mammography: correlation with histopathology.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
- Amorphous breast calcifications: is BI-RADS 4a appropriate?Radiologia brasileiraArticle
- Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer patients.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the rates of diagnostic underestimation at stereotactic percutaneous core needle biopsies (CNB) and vacuum-assisted biopsies (VABB) of nonpalpable breast lesions, with histopathological results of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) subsequently submitted to surgical excision. As a secondary objective, the frequency of ADH and DCIS was determined for the cases submitted to biopsy. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective review of 40 cases with diagnosis of ADH or DCIS on the basis of biopsies performed between February 2011 and July 2013, subsequently submitted to surgery, whose histopathological reports were available in the internal information system. Biopsy results were compared with those observed at surgery and the underestimation rate was calculated by means of specific mathematical equations.
resultsThe underestimation rate at CNB was 50% for ADH and 28.57% for DCIS, and at VABB it was 25% for ADH and 14.28% for DCIS. ADH represented 10.25% of all cases undergoing biopsy, whereas DCIS accounted for 23.91%.
conclusionThe diagnostic underestimation rate at CNB is two times the rate at VABB. Certainty that the target has been achieved is not the sole determining factor for a reliable diagnosis. Removal of more than 50% of the target lesion should further reduce the risk of underestimation.
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.