ArticleGland surgery2019
Hereditary breast cancer: screening and risk reducing surgery.
Article in Gland surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal Imaging of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Single-Center Study of 75 Cases.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Personality traits of women with hereditary risk for breast/ovarian cancer versus obstetric history and cancer preventive behaviors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Preparing PAMAM-Gland surgery · 2021Article
- CDK4, CDK6/cyclin-D1 Complex Inhibition and Radiotherapy for Cancer Control: A Role for Autophagy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Apparent diffusion coefficient magnetic resonance imaging (ADC-MRI) in the axillary breast cancer lymph node metastasis detection: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2020Review
- Downregulation of microRNA-30c-5p was responsible for cell migration and tumor metastasis via COTL1-mediated microfilament arrangement in breast cancer.Gland surgery · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe screening modalities for women at high risk for breast cancer has received an increasing role during the last years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of our screening program comparing the diagnostic sensitivity of clinical breast examination, mammography, ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsClinical Breast examination, mammography, US and MRI for each patient with
resultsTwenty-six female patients with genetic mutation underwent breast surgery. Twenty-two out of 26 (85%) developed cancer during the dedicated screening protocol whereas 4 women who underwent surgery did not have cancer. Imaging was able to detect cancer in all 22 patients (per patient sensibility of 100%), identifying all 35 neoplastic lesions (per lesion sensibility of 100%). The combination of Clinical Breast Examination, US and mammography aided the cancer diagnosis in 14 (64%) of patients with a sensitivity of 64% and specificity of 100%. MRI identified all the cancers, with sensibility and specificity of 100%. Moreover, in 8 (36%) of the 22 patients who developed breast cancers, the cancers were detected only by MRI, revealing a significant superiority respect to the other surveillance modalities (P<0.05).
conclusionsMRI demonstrated to be the best imaging modality in detection of breast cancer even for lesion <1 cm. Prophylactic mastectomy is the most effective risk reduction strategy in women at high risk, contributing to the reduction of anxiety related to the condition of a carrier.
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.