ArticleClinical case reports2025
Radiation-Associated Breast Angiosarcoma Versus Recurrent Invasive Ductal Carcinoma After Partial Mastectomy: A Diagnostic Dilemma.
Article in Clinical case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Radiation-Associated Breast Angiosarcoma Versus Recurrent Invasive Ductal Carcinoma After Partial Mastectomy: A Diagnostic Dilemma.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postradiation angiosarcoma (PRAS) of the breast occurs after irradiation. It is categorized separately from primary angiosarcoma (PAS) in the 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumors. PRAS diagnosis is challenging owing to its occurrence in circumstances similar to breast cancer recurrence, thus complicating cytomorphological analysis. In Japan, breast-conserving therapy is prevalent, with postoperative radiation therapy often employed to mitigate recurrence risk. Given that the number of PRAS cases is anticipated to increase, further research and understanding of this tumor are imperative. Although cytomorphological studies have provided some insights into PAS, similar comprehensive data for PRAS are lacking. In this case study, we report a case of a female in her 50s with a mass detected 8 years postradiotherapy for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) initially suggested IDC recurrence; however, histological and immunohistochemical analyses confirmed PRAS. This case highlights the challenge of distinguishing PRAS from IDC owing to overlapping cytomorphological features. Notably, the absence of benign components and distinctive endothelial wrapping observed on FNAC and imprinting cytology were crucial for accurate diagnosis. These findings highlight key cytomorphological features for PRAS differentiation: high-grade tumor features with monotonous appearance and abundant stromal component, which are essential given its poor response to conventional treatments and increasing incidence owing to standard breast-conserving therapies. Furthermore, recognizing PRAS as a differential diagnosis for neoplasms emerging postradiotherapy is crucial.
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.