Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38855781›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine research2024

Male Breast Cancer: Imaging Considerations for Diagnosis and Surveillance.

Mathew Thomas, Hatem Al Kashroom, Shilpa Reddy, Daniel Zaccarini, Katherine Willer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  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

5 authors.

Mathew ThomasDepartment of Internal Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Hatem Al KashroomDepartment of Radiology, State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Shilpa ReddyDepartment of Pathology, State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Daniel ZaccariniDepartment of Pathology, State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Katherine WillerDepartment of Radiology, State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate, Syracuse, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancer cases. The important risk factors for the development of male breast cancer are family history, genetic mutations, obesity, liver disease, alcoholism, exogenous estrogen administration, and radiation exposure to the chest area. Despite its rarity, numerous studies have investigated the data on imaging considerations (mammogram, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)), but have addressed only certain aspects of male breast cancer. A comprehensive approach on the imaging characteristics, timing of imaging, prognostication based on imaging characteristics, and follow-up strategies in male breast cancer are still lacking. The purpose of this review article was to provide a comprehensive overview of the imaging findings, optimal timing to obtain imaging, and the appropriate follow-up strategies in male breast cancer survivors. This article also describes how imaging modalities can aid in determining prognosis. By addressing this knowledge gap, the article provides valuable insights for clinicians managing this uncommon yet clinically significant disease.

Indexed as

Male breast cancerMammogramMRI in male breast cancerScreeningSonogramSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID38855781
PMCPMC11161189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.