ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Clinical and imaging characteristics of encapsulated papillary carcinoma: a comparative analysis with intraductal papilloma.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEncapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) exhibits clinical and imaging characteristics that resemble those of the benign tumor intraductal papilloma (IDP). The differences between these two entities have not been extensively studied. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the clinical and imaging features of EPC and IDP.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using data from 36 patients diagnosed with EPC and 30 patients diagnosed with IDP at a single center between May 2016 and May 2023. Clinical parameters, including patient age and the presence of nipple discharge, as well as imaging parameters such as nodule size, shape, margins, aspect ratio, internal structure, calcifications, posterior acoustic enhancement, blood flow signals, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification, were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe mean age of patients with EPC was significantly higher than that of those with IDP (60.39 years vs. 49.27 years, p < 0.01). EPC nodules were larger in size (3.00 ± 2.17 cm vs. 2.11 ± 0.85 cm) and more frequently exhibited a cystic-solid composition (61.11% vs. 36.67%, p < 0.05). Posterior acoustic enhancement was observed in 72.22% of EPCs compared to 40.00% of IDPs (p < 0.01). Additionally, EPCs were associated with a higher incidence of abundant blood flow signals (grade ≥ 2) than IDPs (63.89% vs. 36.67%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were noted in terms of nodule morphology, margins, or BI-RADS classification. Mammographic features, including calcifications, were comparable between the two groups.
conclusionThis study presents the imaging characteristics of EPC and identifies potential clinical and imaging differences between EPC and IDP. These findings support clinicians in distinguishing EPC from IDP more effectively.
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.