ReviewCurrent oncology reports2018
How Do We Approach Benign Proliferative Lesions?
Review in Current oncology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative fluorescence imaging with aminolevulinic acid detects grossly occult breast cancer: a phase II randomized controlled trial.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2021Trial
- Outcomes of high-risk breast lesions diagnosed using image-guided core needle biopsy: results from a multicenter retrospective study.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- Prediction of malignancy upgrade rate in high-risk breast lesions using an artificial intelligence model: a retrospective studyDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- High-risk lesions of the breast: concurrent diagnostic tools and management recommendations.Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- Multidisciplinary management of CDH1 germinal mutation and prophylactic management hereditary lobular breast cancer: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe aim of this review is to summarize recently published literature addressing atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), lobular neoplasia (atypical lobular hyperplasia [ALH] and classic lobular carcinoma in situ [C-LCIS]), non-classic lobular carcinoma in situ (NC-LCIS), papillary lesions, and flat epithelial atypia (FEA). RECENT
findingsWhile ADH, ALN, and C-LCIS are well-established markers of an increased risk of future breast cancers, the risk implications are less clear for papillary lesions and FEA. NC-LCIS is the least well-characterized lesion, with scant published literature on its natural history and surgical management when encountered on needle biopsy. Recent data suggest that lobular neoplasia on core biopsy of a BI-RADS ≤ 4 concordant lesion does not require an excision, while ADH, atypical papillomas, and NC-LCIS should be excised. Evidence on FEA and papillomas without atypia suggests a low risk of upgrade on excision, and prospective studies on the upgrade of these lesions are ongoing.
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.