ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Correlation of preoperative sonographic staging and postoperative histopathologic staging in patients with invasive breast cancer.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the accuracy of preoperative sonographic staging in patients with primary invasive breast cancer.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a prospectively kept service database of patients with newly diagnosed, unifocal, cT1-3, invasive breast cancer. All patients were diagnosed at a single center institution between January 2013 and December 2021. Clinical T stage was assessed preoperatively by ultrasound and correlated with the definite postoperative pathologic T stage. Demographics, clinical and pathological characteristics were collected. Factors influencing accuracy, over- and underdiagnosis of sonographic staging were analyzed with multivariable regression analysis.
resultsA total of 2478 patients were included in the analysis. Median patients' age was 65 years. 1577 patients (63.6%) had clinical T1 stage, 864 (34.9%) T2 and 37 (1.5%) T3 stage. The overall accuracy of sonography and histology was 76.5% (n = 1896), overestimation was observed in 9.1% (n = 225) of all cases, while underestimation occurred in 14.4% (n = 357) of all cases. Accuracy increased when clinical tumor stage cT was higher (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.10-1.38, p ≤ 0.001). The highest accuracy was seen for patients with T2 stage (82.8%). The accuracy was lower in Luminal B tumors compared to Luminal A tumors (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59-0.87, p ≤ 0.001). We could not find any association between sonographic accuracy in HER2 positive patients, and demographic characteristics, or tumor-related factors.
conclusionOur unicentric study showed a high accuracy of sonography in predicting T stage, especially for tumors with clinical T2 stage. Tumor stage and biological tumor factors do affect the accuracy of sonographic staging.
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.