| Title |
Isolated radial scar diagnosis by core-needle biopsy: Is surgical excision necessary?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-1993-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth Min Hui Kim, Andrea Hankins, Jamie Cassity, Dennis McDonald, Barbara White, Ron Rowberry, Sharon Dutton, Claire Snyder |
| Abstract |
Radial scar and radial sclerosis (RS) are considered benign breast lesions with proliferative features. There is sparse literature on frequency of cancer upgrade in these patients without atypical features found on image-guided needle biopsy. This study retrospectively reviews cases of isolated RS diagnosed on needle biopsy and evaluates the cancer upgrade after subsequent surgical excision. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of cases with an isolated RS diagnosis based on needle biopsy and subsequent surgical pathology among all patients between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013. Patients with concomitant atypia, lobular carcinoma in situ on core biopsy, complete excision of very small RS with needle biopsy, and radiology-pathology discordance were excluded. An upgrade from the needle biopsy of RS was defined as surgical excision pathology that revealed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and/or invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). 10,921 image-guided needle biopsy pathology reports were collected and 88 patients (0.81 %) were identified as having isolated RS. Of these 88 patients, 63 (72 %) underwent excision. The upgrade rate to cancer on subsequent surgical excision was 1.59 % (1/63) for DCIS; 0 % (0/63) for IDC; and 0 % (0/63) ILC. Twenty-five patients who did not undergo surgical excision had stable imaging studies with mean (±SD) 26 (±20) months follow up. Isolated radial scar on needle biopsy may not warrant routine surgical excision given relatively low cancer upgrade rates. Advancement in breast imaging, pathology and multidisciplinary approaches to care may effectively guide non-surgical management of RS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 23% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 68% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,774,085
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#100
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,579
of 301,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#8
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.