ArticleMedicine2020
Opening label, dynamic prospective cohort study on the small focus less than 1.0 cm shown by type B ultrasound in breast.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA consensus has not been achieved regarding the treatment of small nonpalpable breast lesions, and the purpose of this study was to prospectively investigate nonpalpable lesions less than 1.0 cm in diameter to explore the risk factors for such lesions and determine appropriate treatment of such kind of lesions.
methodsA total of 1039 patients with small lesions less than 1.0 cm in diameter who underwent mammography and ultrasound from 2009 to 2010 in our institution were prospectively enrolled. Among them, 80 patients underwent biopsy, whose lesions grew by more than 30% of its original size, with an unclear boundary or irregular shape. All patients were followed-up for an average of 24 months, and lesions identified as high-risk types, such as cancer or atypical hyperplasia, of tumors on pathological examination were labeled "meaningful lesions." Then relevant factors affecting the detection of meaningful lesions were analyzed.
resultsIn total, 40 meaningful lesions including 2 breast cancers were detected, accounting for 3.8% and 0.2% of all patients, respectively. Univariate analysis identified smoking (P = .030), irregular shape (P = .018), unclear boundary (P = .024), and vascularization (P = .023) as risk factors for the detection of meaningful lesions (P < .05). On multivariate analysis, smoking and irregular shape were further identified as independent risk factors for the detection of meaningful lesions.
conclusionThe overall incidence of cancer among nonpalpable lesions with a diameter less than 1.0 cm is low. Biopsies are strongly recommended for patients who are smokers or who have small lesions with an irregular shape, whereas regular follow-up observation is likely safe for other patients with small, non-palpable breast lesions.
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.