ArticleAME case reports2024
A case report of synchronous breast and lung cancer with three different pathologic diagnoses.
Article in AME case reports, 2024. 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.
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple primary malignant tumors (MPMTs) pose a significant clinical challenge, denoting the occurrence of two or more distinct malignant tumors with differing histological characteristics, all diagnosed within a 6-month timeframe. MPMT is a rare condition and due to the unique treatment requirements for each specific cancer type, it is crucial for healthcare professionals to accurately differentiate between metastatic growth and distinct primary tumors. Case Description: In this case report, we present a 41-year-old female patient who received diagnoses of three separate synchronous primary tumors. The patient presented for evaluation of a right breast mass that had been present for 1 year. Initial diagnostic tests, including mammography and ultrasound, did not provide any conclusive results. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast prompted an ultrasound-guided biopsy which confirmed moderately differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). During pre-surgical testing, a suspicious opacity was detected on a chest X-ray, prompting further investigation with a computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest to distinguish between metastatic disease and a potential new primary tumor. Clinical and pathological examinations revealed the presence of bilateral masses originating from two different origins: invasive mucinous pulmonary adenocarcinoma in the left lower lobe and a neuroendocrine carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung. Conclusions: Cases of this nature present a complex challenge to physicians and underscore the critical importance of maintaining a high level of clinical suspicion to ensure the delivery of high-quality care. Effective management of such patients requires a multidisciplinary collaboration among breast surgeons, thoracic surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists.
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.