ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by US-guided core needle biopsy: clinical, pathological and US features associated with upgrading to malignancy.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo develop a predictive model to identify atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) that was underestimated by US-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) and to evaluate the risk factors for underestimation for ADH with intraductal papilloma diagnosed by CNB.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 300 CNB-diagnosed ADH lesions in 291 consecutive women between January 2014 and July 2023 were included and divided into training set (n = 181), internal validation set (n = 54), and external validation set (n = 65). The review included clinical, pathological, and US features, as well as final outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to establish predictive model and to evaluate risk factors. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, decision curve analysis, and utility (patient stratification into low and high-risk groups). Model was validated both internally and externally by calculating its performance on validation sets.
resultsThe upgrade rate to malignancy was 51.0%. Predictors included in the model were age, the pathological pattern of ADH with intraductal papilloma or ADH alone, Ki-67 positivity, and imaging-pathological discordance. The AUC was 0.915 (95% CI: 0.858, 0.955) in the training set, 0.906 (95% CI: 0.785, 0.972) in the internal validation set, and 0.934 (95% CI: 0.836, 0.983) in the external validation set. Using a cutoff value of 0.11, 38.3% of nonmalignant lesions in the training set were stratified into low-risk group with an upgrade rate of 4.1%. Similar results were obtained in the validation sets. For ADH with intraductal papilloma, age and imaging-pathological discordance were the independent risk factors for malignancy upgrading.
conclusionsThe model established to predict ADH upgrading can help in individualized risk management. If predictors of non-upgraded ADH lesions can be confirmed with larger studies, more than one-third of non-malignant lesions are expected to be candidates for non-excision.
trial registrationThis is a retrospective study.
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.