ArticleJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology
Treatment of Pregnancy-Associated Breast Cancer.
Article in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
KS is a 33-year-old Caucasian married woman who works full time as an accountant and has one daughter who is 2 years old. She enjoys reading and exercising in her spare time. She initially presented in July 2015 at the age of 31 years with a 1-cm breast mass in the left inner breast, which prompted a mammogram to be obtained. The mammogram revealed diffuse and occasionally grouped left breast calcifications. Additionally, there was focal edema at the site of the mass. A follow-up mammogram was recommended to document stability in 6 months, which demonstrated an interval increase in number and size of segmental pleomorphic calcifications in the lower inner breast spanning 6 cm in size. A stereotactic core needle biopsy was completed and revealed high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) that was estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) positive. SURGICAL TREATMENT: KS underwent genetic testing due to her young age at diagnosis of noninvasive breast cancer. She was tested with the breast/ovarian cancer panel, which was negative for mutation.She preceded to bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy with left sentinel node biopsy and immediate implant reconstruction in February 2016. The operative pathology revealed 3.3 cm of high-grade DCIS. The surgical margins were negative (less than 1 mm posteriorly and less than 2 mm anteriorly). There was 1 sentinel node and 2 nonsentinel nodes negative for malignancy. The right breast was negative for cancer and both retro areolar margins were negative.KS did well during the ensuing routine follow-up every 6 to 12 months in surgical oncology at an academic medical center. She was not recommended to take adjuvant endocrine therapy given the benefit of bilateral mastectomy.In 2017, at a routine oncology follow-up visit, she expressed a desire to have more children. After a negative clinical exam, she and her husband were advised that future contraception may be pursued. PREGNANCY-ASSOCIATED BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS: KS was in her usual state of good health when she noticed a left breast mass in the inferior reconstructed breast in June 2017. She presented to the nurse practitioner (NP) in the surgical oncology clinic for evaluation. At that time, she was 17 weeks pregnant and being seen in the same facility for high-risk obstetrics and gynecology care. KS had no other concerning symptoms for recurrent cancer, and her pregnancy had been progressing smoothly.The surgical oncology NP noted a 1-cm firm superficial mass in the breast at 6 o'clock. She had no other bilateral breast findings or adenopathy. Upon review of systems, she denied new persistent headache, shortness of breath, abdominal pain, weight loss, night sweats, or fatigue.Due to her pregnancy and the superficial presentation of the breast mass, a left breast ultrasound was ordered. It revealed an 8-mm irregular hypoechoic mass 7 cm from the nipple at the 6 o'clock position in the reconstructed breast.A diagnostic workup ensued with a left breast ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. KS was given a diagnosis of clinical stage T1b, N0, grade 2 invasive micropapillary carcinoma: ER positive (Allred 6), PR positive (Allred 8), HER2/
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.