ArticleBreast cancer : basic and clinical research2019
Hematologic Malignancies of the Breast: A Contemporary Series Investigating Incidence, Presentation, Accuracy of Diagnosis on Core Needle Biopsy, and Hormone Receptor Expression.
Article in Breast cancer : basic and clinical research, 2019. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodality imaging findings of hematological malignancies involving the breast: a retrospective analysis based on the updated BI-RADS v2025 Manual.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Hematolymphoid neoplasms involving the breast: A single institution clinicopathologic study of 59 patients.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Primary breast diffuse large B-cell lymphoma mimicking breast carcinoma: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Metastatic cyclin D1 positive lobular breast carcinoma as a potential lymphoma mimicker.EJHaem · 2023Article
- Primary breast lymphoma initially diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinoma: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistinguishing breast hematologic malignancies in core needle biopsies from other entities can be challenging. Misclassification as a breast carcinoma could result in inappropriate treatment. The aim of this study was to characterize the types, incidence, and helpful diagnostic features of hematologic malignancies of the breast.
designAll hematologic malignancies of the breast diagnosed at our institution from 2004 to 2017 were identified. Clinical notes, imaging, and slides were reviewed. Immunohistochemical analysis of estrogen receptor α (ERα), estrogen receptor β (ERβ), and androgen receptor (AR) was performed when tissue was available.
resultsIn all, 43 hematologic malignancies from biopsies of 37 women and 6 men were identified. Core needle biopsies (35 or 81%) were more common than excisions (8 or 19%). For 14 patients (40%), the core biopsy was the first diagnosis of a hematologic malignancy. Diagnoses included 37 lymphomas (7 primary), 4 leukemias, and 2 myelomas. There was 1 misdiagnosis of carcinoma. Low positivity for hormone receptors was observed in a minority of lymphomas. A definitive diagnosis of hematologic malignancy was made in 31 (89%) of the core needle biopsies. Only 3 patients undergoing core biopsy required excision for diagnosis.
conclusionsMost of the hematologic malignancies of the breast are currently diagnosed on core needle biopsy and 40% of patients do not have a prior history. To avoid errors, pathologists need to be aware of diagnostic features and morphologic mimics. A hematologic malignancy should be considered if tumor cells are discohesive, carcinoma in situ is absent, and hormone expression is low or absent.
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.