Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41452816›Full record

ReviewThe American journal of case reports2025

Primary Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumor of the Breast: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Sanjna Sai Gudena, Nilesh Digvijay Kashikar, Matthew Charles Wakefield

Abstract readCase ReportsReview
In one paragraph

Review in The American journal of case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sanjna Sai GudenaSTEM Early College, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA.
Nilesh Digvijay KashikarGreensboro Pathology Associates, Cone Health, Greensboro, NC, USA.
Matthew Charles WakefieldDepartment of General Surgery, Central Carolina Surgery - Duke Health, Greensboro, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Primary breast neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are extremely rare, comprising 1-5% of diagnosed breast cancers. The goal of this paper is to describe the current literature on these cancers, along with treatment options and survival data from prior studies. CASE REPORT A 61-year-old woman presented with a palpable lump in the breast, which upon biopsy was proven to be a primary breast neuroendocrine tumor. This was treated with breast-conserving surgery with sentinel lymph node dissection, followed by adjuvant radiation. She refused anti-estrogen therapy, and 2 years later she presented with metastatic disease, chose not to receive any additional treatment, and died. Several retrospective analyses have illustrated that breast neuroendocrine tumors have a slightly worse prognosis compared to invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs) when stratified by stage. However, most of the studies had small sample sizes, which makes interpretation of data from these studies difficult to generalize to the overall population of breast NENs. CONCLUSIONS Routine testing for neuroendocrine markers could identify a larger population of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Currently, because of the rarity of these tumors, prospective trials are not available to study them as a distinct entity to evaluate and optimize treatments. Reports indicate that these tumors have overall inferior survival compared to IDCs. Further studies are needed to evaluate this rare entity to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsFatal OutcomeFemaleHumansMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedSentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Identifiers

PMID41452816
PMCPMC12790131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.