ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
Pathology Examination of Breast Reduction Specimens: Dispelling the Myth.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Inferior Pedicle and Superomedial Pedicle Techniques in Reduction Mammaplasty for Gigantomastia: Postoperative Complications, Aesthetic Outcomes and Quality of Life.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Preoperative breast cancer screening before chest masculinization surgery.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Reshaping Our Understanding of Sensation and Pain Following Breast Reduction Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Article
- Histologic Examination of Mastectomy Scars during Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
More than 100,000 reduction mammaplasties are performed in the United States each year. There is large variance in reported incidence of cancerous/high-risk lesions, ranging from 0.06% to 4.6%. There has been debate whether histological review of breast reduction specimen is necessary. This study aimed to determine the incidence of cancerous/high-risk lesions and to evaluate risk factors for their occurrence.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted for all patients who underwent reduction mammaplasty in 2018 by the senior author. Variables collected included demographics, comorbidities, history of breast surgery, family/personal history of breast cancer, weight of specimen, and pathologic findings. All specimens underwent pathologic evaluation and categorized as benign, proliferative, or malignant.
resultsA total of 155 patients underwent 310 reduction mammaplasties. Pathologic evaluations found that 11 patients (7.1%) had positive findings, 9 (5.8%) had proliferative lesions, and 2 (1.29%) had cancerous lesions. Patients with pathology were older (
conclusionsThese findings demonstrate an incidence of positive pathology higher than that reported and illustrate the importance of histologic review of breast reduction specimens. Family history of breast cancer, prior breast surgery, and a greater weight of resected tissue increase risk for proliferative/cancerous lesions.
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.