ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2025
Macroscopic morphology of breast carcinoma: associations with biological subtypes and pathological features.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMorphological features of tumors can reflect the biological behavior of breast carcinoma; however, a consensus macroscopic classification remains elusive. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the relationship between macroscopic morphology and biological behavior of breast carcinoma.
methodsWe evaluated 328 post-operative breast carcinomas, stratifying them by hormone receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status (luminal-like, luminal-HER2, HER2-positive [non-luminal], triple-negative), and morphological patterns. The tumors comprised infiltrative (n = 101), expansive (n = 93), non-mass (n = 62), mixed (n = 59), and unclassifiable (n = 13). Expansive and non-mass types were sub-classified as acellular, rich vessel, cystic, glossy, comedo, or ductal. Furthermore, we assessed histopathological features, including linear fibrosis, central scar, central cavity, spot necrosis, comedo necrosis, intraductal secretion, and blood spots.
resultsInfiltrative tumors were primarily luminal-like with a central scar (57/101, 56%) and linear fibrosis (98/101, 97%); expansive tumors were frequently triple-negative with spot necrosis (21/93, 23%), and blood spots (33/93, 35%); non-mass tumors were usually HER2-positive (non-luminal) with comedo necrosis (27/62, 44%) and intraductal secretion (42/62, 68%). In histological diagnosis, infiltrative types were commonly invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (54/101, 53%); expansive types included invasive solid papillary carcinoma (iSPC) (21/93, 23%); and non-mass types encompassed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (28/62, 45%). Rich vessel lesions aligned with iSPC, acellular with squamous cell carcinoma, cystic with encapsulated papillary carcinoma, glossy with mucinous carcinoma, and comedo with high-grade DCIS.
conclusionOur findings demonstrated that morphological classification of breast carcinoma correlates with biological features and may aid diagnostic strategies, including imaging and pathological subtype diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40900380What 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.