Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30591993›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2019

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.

Christoph J Rageth, Ravit Rubenov, Cristian Bronz, Daniel Dietrich, Christoph Tausch, Ann-Katrin Rodewald, Zsuzsanna Varga

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Christoph J RagethCentre du sein, Département de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Bd de la Cluse 30, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland. jcr@2cr.ch.
Ravit RubenovBrust-Zentrum Zürich, Seefeldstr. 214, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Cristian BronzClinic for Gynecology, University Hospital Zurich, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel DietrichSwiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland.
Christoph TauschBrust-Zentrum Zürich, Seefeldstr. 214, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ann-Katrin RodewaldInstitute of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 12, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Zsuzsanna VargaInstitute of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 12, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Zurich · CHImmunologie-Zentrum Zürich · CHSwiss Group For Clinical Cancer Research · CHWalker (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk assessment and therapeutic options are challenges when counselling patients with an atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) to undergo either open surgery or follow-up only.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a series of ADH lesions and assessed whether the morphological parameters of the biopsy materials indicated whether the patient should undergo surgery. A total of 207 breast biopsies [56 core needle biopsies (CNBs) and 151 vacuum-assisted biopsies (VABs)] histologically diagnosed as ADH were analyzed retrospectively, together with subsequently obtained surgical specimens. All histological slides were re-analyzed with regard to the presence/absence of ADH-associated calcification, other B3 lesions (lesion of uncertain malignant potential), extent of the lesion, and the presence of multifocality.

resultsThe overall underestimation rate for the whole cohort was 39% (57% for CNB, 33% for VAB). In the univariate analysis, the method of biopsy (CNB vs VAB, p = 0.002) and presence of multifocality in VAB specimens (p = 0.0176) were significant risk factors for the underestimation of the disease (ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive cancer detected on subsequent open biopsy). In the multivariate logistic regression model, the absence of calcification (p = 0.0252) and the presence of multifocality (unifocal vs multifocal ADH, p = 0.0147) in VAB specimens were significant risk factors for underestimation.

conclusionsMultifocal ADH without associated calcification diagnosed by CNB tends to have a higher upgrade rate. Because the upgrade rate was 16.5% even in the group with the lowest risk (VAB-diagnosed unifocal ADH with calcification), we could not identify a subgroup that would not require an open biopsy.

Indexed as

BiopsyBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleBreast NeoplasmsCalcinosisCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsRetrospective StudiesVacuumADHAtypical ductal hyperplasiaB3 lesionUnderestimation

Identifiers

PMID30591993
PMCPMC6570781
OpenAlexW2908182025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.