ArticleHistopathology2025
Variability in the diagnosis and reporting of metaplastic breast carcinoma: results of an international survey.
Article in Histopathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
aimsMetaplastic breast carcinoma (MBC) is a heterogeneous group of invasive breast carcinoma with squamous, spindle cell, or mesenchymal elements. It may be monophasic or biphasic, and often coexists with invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (IBC-NST). Currently, there are no standardized guidelines for reporting MBC, and a diagnostic threshold for the metaplastic component is not established by the WHO classification. METHODS AND
resultsA survey conducted from April-July 2023 gathered responses from 44 pathologists worldwide. Most respondents were academic breast pathologists, and attended weekly breast tumour boards. The criteria for diagnosing MBC were highly varied, with cutoffs ranging from any/<10% to >90% metaplastic component. Although 90% was the most common threshold used, only 25% of respondents applied it. Pathologists generally preferred diagnosing invasive carcinoma with mixed features when the metaplastic component was ≤50% and MBC when the metaplastic component >50%. Most pathologists reported both the type and percentage of metaplastic component. In all, 43% reported core biopsy and resection specimen with different approaches. Diagnostic guidelines reportedly used (if any) were highly varied.
conclusionThe study underscores the need for standardized guidelines for MBC. Without clear and established diagnostic criteria, current data on MBC remains inconsistent and hinders further research into the clinical significance and prognostic implications of the metaplastic component.
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.