ArticleBMC cancer2021
Breast lesions excised via vacuum-assisted system: could we get any clues for B3 lesions before excision biopsy?
Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unexpected breast cancer mimicking benign lesions on ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted excision biopsy: A retrospective cross-sectional study over a 20-year period.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Efficacy and safety of microwave ablation for benign breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the ultrasound features as well as patient characteristics assigned to B3 (uncertain malignant potential) breast lesions before vacuum-assisted excision biopsy (VAEB).
methodsThis study population consisted of 2245 women with breast-nodular abnormalities, which were conducted ultrasound-guided VAEB (US-VAEB). Patient's clinical and anamnestic data and lesion-related ultrasonic feature variables of B3 captured before US-VAEB were compared with those of benign or malignant cases, using histopathological results as a benchmark.
resultsThe proportions of benign, B3 and malignant breast lesions diagnosed post-US-VAEB were 88.5, 8.2 and 3.4% respectively. B3 high frequent occurred in BI-RADS-US grade 3 (7.7%), grade 4a (11.0%) and grade 4b (9.1%). The overall malignancy underestimation rate of B3 was 4.4% (8/183). Malignant lesions were found mostly in the range of BI-RADS grade 4b (27.3%), grade 4c (33.3%) and grade 5 (100%). Multivariate binary logistic regression analyses (B3 vs benign) showed that non-menopausal patients (95% CI 1.628-8.616, P = 0.002), single (95% CI 1.370-2.650, P = 0.000) or vascularity (95% CI 1.745-4.150, P = 0.000) nodules in ultrasonic features were significant risk factors for B3 occurrences. In addition, patients elder than 50 years (95% CI 3.178-19.816, P = 0.000), unclear margin (95% CI 3.571-14.119, P = 0.000) or suspicious calcification (95% CI 4.010-30.733, P = 0.000) lesions were significantly associated with higher risks of malignant potentials for B3 cases (malignant vs B3).
conclusionThe results of this study indicate that ultrasound findings and patients' characteristics might provide valuable information for distinguishing B3 lesions from benign breast abnormalities before VAEB, and help to reduce malignancy underestimation of B3.
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.