ArticleJournal of breast imaging
Isolated Flat Epithelial Atypia: Upgrade Outcomes After Multidisciplinary Review-Based Management Using Excision or Imaging Surveillance.
Article in Journal of breast imaging. 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.
- Mitigating overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.Radiology advances · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To compare flat epithelial atypia (FEA) upgrade rates after excision versus surveillance and to identify variables associated with upgrade. Methods: This single-institution retrospective study identified isolated FEA cases determined by percutaneous biopsy from April 2005 through July 2022 with excision or ≥2 years surveillance. All cases were recommended for excision or surveillance based on multidisciplinary discussion of clinical, imaging, and pathologic variables with emphasis on sampling adequacy and significant atypia. Truth was determined by pathology at excision or the absence of cancer on surveillance. Upgrade was defined as cancer occurring ≤2 cm from the biopsy site. Demographic, imaging, and biopsy variables were compared between those that did and did not upgrade. Results: Among 112 cases of isolated FEA, imaging findings included calcifications in 81.3% (91/112), MRI lesions in 11.6% (13/112), and distortions or masses in 7.1% (8/112). Excision was recommended in 12.5% (14/112) and surveillance in 87.5% (98/112) of cases. Among those recommended for excision, 28.6% (4/14) of cases were upgraded, all to ductal carcinoma in situ. In those recommended for surveillance, 1.0% (1/98) were upgraded to invasive cancer. Overall, FEA had a 4.5% (5/112) upgrade rate, and 2.7% (3/112) also developed cancer >2 cm from the FEA. There were no significant differences in demographic, imaging, and biopsy variables between those that did and did not upgrade to cancer. Conclusion: Multidisciplinary management of isolated FEA distinguishes those at higher risk of upgrade to cancer (28.6%) in whom surgery is warranted from those at low risk of upgrade (1.0%) who can be managed non-operatively.
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.