Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37780817›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2023

Pathological macroscopic evaluation of breast density versus mammographic breast density in breast cancer conserving surgery.

Yedda Nunes Reis, Bruna Salani Mota, Rosa Maria Salani Mota, Carlos Shimizu, Marcos Desiderio Ricci, Fernando Nalesso Aguiar, José Maria Soares-Jr, Edmund Chada Baracat, José Roberto Filassi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yedda Nunes ReisSetor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia do Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) / ICESP - Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Bruna Salani MotaSetor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia do Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) / ICESP - Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Rosa Maria Salani MotaUniversidade Federal do Ceará, Brasil.
Carlos ShimizuDepartamento de Radiologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP)/ ICESP - Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Marcos Desiderio RicciSetor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia do Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) / ICESP - Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Fernando Nalesso AguiarDepartamento de Patologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) / ICESP - Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
José Maria Soares-JrSetor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia do Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) / ICESP - Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Edmund Chada BaracatSetor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia do Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) / ICESP - Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
José Roberto FilassiSetor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia do Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) / ICESP - Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal do Ceará · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Correlation between imaging and anatomopathological breast density has been superficially explored and is heterogeneous in current medical literature. It is possible that mammographic and pathological findings are divergent. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between breast density classified by mammography and breast density of pathological macroscopic examination in specimens of breast cancer conservative surgeries. Post-hoc, exploratory analysis of a prospective randomized clinical trial of patients with breast cancer candidates for breast conservative surgery. Breast mammographic density (MD) was analyzed according to ACR BI-RADS® criteria, and pathologic macroscopic evaluation of breast density (PMBD) was estimated by visually calculating the ratio between stromal and fatty tissue. From 412 patients, MD was A in 291 (70,6%), B in 80 (19,4%) B, C in 35 (8,5%), and D in 6 (1,5%). Ninety-nine percent (201/203) of patients classified as A+B in MD were correspondently classified in PMBD. Conversely, only 18.7% (39/209) of patients with MD C+D were classified correspondently in PMBD (p < 0.001). Binary logistic regression showed age (OR 1.06, 1.01-1.12 95% CI, p 0.013) and nulliparity (OR 0.39, 0.17-0.96 95% CI, p 0.039) as predictors of A+B PMBD. Conclusion: Mammographic and pathologic macroscopic breast density showed no association in our study for breast C or D in breast image. The fatty breast was associated with older patients and the nulliparity decreases the chance of fatty breasts nearby 60%.

Indexed as

Breast densityBreast neoplasmsMammographyPathology

Identifiers

PMID37780817
PMCPMC10539930
OpenAlexW4386989265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.