ArticleCureus2025
A Rare Breast Tumor Presenting As Adenomyoepithelioma With Suspicious Imaging Features: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adenomyoepitheliomas (AMEs) are rare breast neoplasms often detected incidentally during routine screening mammograms in asymptomatic females. Clinically, AMEs usually present as a palpable, solitary mass, though they may also be discovered during routine imaging. Radiologically, AMEs exhibit variable features. Mammography findings may include round or lobulated masses with circumscribed or indistinct margins, occasionally accompanied by microcalcifications. On ultrasound, they typically appear as solid, hypoechoic, irregular, or oval masses with microlobulated margins, while color Doppler may demonstrate internal hypervascularity. However, these imaging characteristics are nonspecific and can mimic other breast lesions, including malignancies. Histologically, AMEs are defined by a biphasic proliferation of epithelial and myoepithelial cells, with patterns such as spindle cell, tubular, and lobular variants. Immunohistochemical staining plays a crucial role in diagnosis, with markers such as p63, calponin, and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain being positive. Atypical features, including nuclear pleomorphism, mitotic activity, and necrosis, should prompt suspicion for malignancy. The primary treatment for AMEs is complete surgical excision with clear margins to reduce the risk of recurrence. Incomplete tumor removal is associated with a higher likelihood of local recurrence. Malignant transformation of either cellular component is rare but has been reported, with metastases to the lungs, brain, and thyroid. Malignant AMEs are characterized by significant cytologic atypia and high mitotic rates. Studies suggest that larger tumors with infiltrative margins carry an elevated risk of recurrence and metastasis. In this case report, we present a case of a 42-year-old female who presented for a routine screening mammography with a subsequent breast ultrasound and was found to have a suspicious mass that was pathologically proven as benign AME.
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.