ArticleJournal of breast cancer2022
Survival Outcomes of Patients With Breast Cancer Diagnosed Using Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy: A Nationwide Study From the Korean Breast Cancer Society.
Article in Journal of breast cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Minimally invasive biopsy-based diagnostics in support of precision cancer medicine.Molecular oncology · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBreast cancer is mainly diagnosed using core needle biopsy (CNB), although other biopsy methods, including vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), may also be used. We compared differences in clinical characteristics and prognoses of patients with breast cancer according to biopsy methods used for diagnosis.
methodsA total of 98,457 patients who underwent various biopsy methods (CNB, fine-needle aspiration [FNA], VAB, and excisional biopsy) for diagnosing breast cancer were recruited. Using CNB as a reference, related clinicopathological factors and prognostic differences between biopsy methods were analyzed retrospectively using large-scale data from the Korean Breast Cancer Society Registration System. The associations between biopsy methods and clinicopathological factors were compared using multinomial logistic regression analysis, and the prognoses of patients undergoing the different biopsy methods, as breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS), were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model.
resultsUnivariate and multivariate analyses showed that unlike FNA, both VAB and excisional biopsy were significantly associated with tumor size, palpability, tumor stage, and histologic grade as relatively good prognostic factors compared to CNB. In particular, VAB showed lower odds ratios for these factors than excisional biopsy. In the univariate analysis, the prognosis of patients undergoing VAB was better than that of those undergoing CNB with respect to BCSS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.188,
conclusionIn this study, we showed that the characteristics of breast cancer differed according to various biopsy methods. Although VAB is not a standard method for breast cancer diagnosis, it showed no prognostic differences to CNB.
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.