ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2019
The Influence of Age on the Histopathology and Prognosis of Atypical Breast Lesions.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk assessment tools for women with breast atypia: A systematic review.American journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Management of high-risk (B3) breast lesions in symptomatic practice: evidence review and practical recommendations for multidisciplinary care.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Review
- Subsequent percutaneous breast biopsies after initial atypia diagnosis: The patient burden of long-term follow up.American journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Trajectory of Subsequent Breast Cancer Diagnoses in a Diverse Patient Cohort with Breast Atypia.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- The Influence of Body Mass Index on the Histopathology and Outcomes of Patients Diagnosed with Atypical Breast Lesions.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough several prognostic variables and risk factors for breast cancer are age-related, the association between age and risk of cancer with breast atypia is controversial. This study aimed to compare the type of breast atypia and risk of underlying or subsequent breast cancer by age.
methodsAdult women with breast atypia (atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, and lobular carcinoma in situ) at a single institution from 2008 to 2017 were stratified by age at initial diagnosis: <50 y, 50-70 y, and >70 y. Regression modeling was used to estimate the association of age with risk of underlying carcinoma or subsequent cancer diagnosis.
resultsA total of 530 patients with atypia were identified: 31.1% < 50 y (n = 165), 58.1% 50-70 y (n = 308), and 10.8% > 70 y (n = 57). The proportion of women with atypical ductal hyperplasia steadily increased with age, compared with atypical lobular proliferations (P = 0.04). Of those with atypia on needle biopsy, the overall rate of underlying carcinoma was 17.5%. After adjustment, older age was associated with a greater risk of underlying carcinoma (odds ratio: 1.028, 95% confidence interval: 1.003-1.053; P = 0.03). Of those confirmed to have atypia on surgical excision, the overall rate of a subsequent cancer diagnosis was 15.7%. Age was not associated with a long-term risk for breast cancer (P = 0.48) or the time to a subsequent diagnosis of carcinoma (log-rank P = 0.41).
conclusionsAlthough atypia diagnosed on needle biopsy may be sufficient to warrant surgical excision, older women may be at a greater risk for an underlying carcinoma, albeit the long-term risk for malignancy associated with atypia does not appear to be affected by age.
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.