ArticleThe American journal of case reports2022
Secretory Carcinoma of the Breast Mimicking Invasive Ductal Carcinoma: A Case Report.
Article in The American journal of case reports, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Secretory breast carcinoma (SBC), an extremely rare malignancy, is related to a chromosomal translocation which leads to an ETV6-NTRK3 fusion mutation. SBC is characterized by eosinophilic secretions and is usually triple-negative, with a small number of patients demonstrating ER-positivity of the tumors. Diagnosis can be challenging and requires genomic testing for confirmation. CASE REPORT A 40-year-old woman presented with a breast mass found on mammography. She underwent an ultrasound-guided biopsy of the tumor. Initial pathology evaluation revealed features consistent with invasive ductal carcinoma. The immunochemistry report described an ER-positive, PR-negative, and HER2-negative tumor. The specimen was sent for oncotype scoring, which was not performed due to the specimen not meeting the criteria for invasive ductal carcinoma and displaying pathological features of SBC. A fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) study revealed ETV6 translocation, consistent with the diagnosis of SBC. The patient underwent lumpectomy followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and endocrine therapy. She remains in complete remission 3 years after treatment. CONCLUSIONS Accurately diagnosing SBC is of extreme importance as it has an indolent clinical course, but has a favorable prognosis if detected early. Due to nonspecific imaging findings, pathology evaluation with immunohistochemical staining followed by genomic testing is required. Our case highlights the challenges associated with SBC diagnosis requiring genomic testing due to equivocal pathological findings, along with increasing incidence of SBT in adults. There are no established guidelines for SBC management. The mainstay of treatment is partial or total mastectomy. Data on the benefits of adjuvant endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy are inconclusive.
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.