ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
Reconsidering the therapeutic use for vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in breast cancer patients: a retrospective single-center study.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vascular Complications following Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy (VABB): A Case Report and Review of the Literature.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of breast cancer has evolved over the last few decades, with needle biopsy interventions now including vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB). Previous studies have examined the utility of VABB for diagnosing breast diseases, although it remains unclear whether VABB is safe and effective for breast cancer. This study evaluated the residual tumor rate and prognosis of breast cancer patients who underwent VABB-based resection.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study evaluated data of 89 Chinese female patients who underwent VABB between January 2011 and December 2018 and had confirmed malignancy on pathological diagnosis. All patients had complete clinical, treatment, and follow-up records. Outcomes were compared according to whether there was residual tumor after the VABB, as well as the time from the VABB to the surgery.
resultsResidual tumor was detected for 62 of the 89 patients (69.6%). When we compared the residual and non-residual groups, we detected significant differences in the ultrasonography-determined diameter (P=0.002) and morphology (P=0.000) of tumor bed after VABB. T classification was also significantly different in the residual and non-residual groups (P=0.001). However, no significant differences were observed when we compared the resected and residual tumors histopathologically (all P>0.05). We did not detect significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) when we compared the residual and non-residual groups over a median follow-up time of 52.3 months. However, in the residual group, a longer time to surgery after VABB (>31 days) was associated with significantly shorter DFS.
conclusionsWhile previous studies have indicated that VABB can be used for early breast cancer, we observed a residual tumor rate of 69.6%, which is consistent with previously reported results. If there is a strong suspicion of breast cancer based on the preoperative examination, the surgeon must be careful to reduce the risk of residual tumor whenever possible, and should also consider performing standard surgery after VABB.
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.