MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4408588017 · doi:10.1093/jbi/wbaf002

Breast Fibromatosis: A Radiologist’s Perspective

2025· article· en· W4408588017 sur OpenAlexaff
Afsaneh Alikhassi, Mia Skarpathiotakis

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Breast Imaging · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSoft tissue tumor case studies
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPerspective (graphical)FibromatosisRadiologyMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A 39-year-old woman with a previous history of right-breast mastectomy, radiation, chemotherapy, and reconstruction for multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma 3 years prior and left lateral breast benign lumpectomy for fibroadenoma remotely presented with a new palpable lump in the lower outer quadrant of her left breast. On the clinical exam, a firm lump fixed to the chest wall was palpated in the lower outer quadrant of the left breast. On mammography, due to the very posterior location of the mass felt clinically, no mammographic correlation was appreciated, even with tomosynthesis and an exaggerated craniocaudal view (Figure 1). Left breast mammogram in a 39-year-old woman with a history of right breast mastectomy with reconstruction and left breast benign lumpectomy remotely. (A) Mediolateral oblique and (B) craniocaudal views demonstrate a long-standing stable circumscribed mass with coarse calcifications in the lateral central breast corresponding to a known fibroadenoma (solid arrow). Due to the very posterior location of the mass felt clinically, no mammographic correlation is appreciated. On US, an irregularly shaped mass with poorly defined borders and internal vascularity measuring up to 2.9 cm was found at 4 o’clock, 5 cm from the nipple (Figure 2). Targeted left-breast US in a 39-year-old woman with a history of right-breast mastectomy with reconstruction and left-breast benign lumpectomy remotely. Grayscale (A) and color (B) Doppler reveal an irregularly shaped mass (arrows) with poorly defined margins, internal vascularity, and significant posterior shadowing at the 4 o’clock position, 5 cm from the nipple. On MRI, an irregular shape, spiculated-margins mass with strong enhancement and persistent enhancement kinetics was seen. The mass invaded the inferior aspect of the pectoralis muscle (Figure 3). Breast MRI in a 39-year-old woman with a history of right-breast mastectomy with reconstruction and left-breast benign lumpectomy remotely. T1 fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced subtracted sagittal (A), T1 fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced nonsubtracted sagittal (B), and T1 fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced subtracted axial (C) images show a spiculated, irregular mass (solid arrows) with substantial enhancement in the lower outer quadrant of the left breast. The mass invades the inferior end of the pectoralis muscle, which shows abnormal enhancement (dashed arrows). The abnormal enhancement abuts the ribs and intercostal muscles, but no indication of involvement within the ribs exists. Additionally, there are no signs of overlying skin involvement. Signs of mastectomy and reconstruction are also noted in the right breast. The US-guided core needle biopsy revealed a spindle cell lesion with some mitotic activity. Differential diagnoses of metaplastic carcinoma and mesenchymal neoplasms were suggested without ruling out sarcoma. Subsequently, the pathology was reviewed at the sarcoma clinic and discussed at the tumor board, which confirmed a diagnosis of fibromatosis. Fibromatosis tumor of the breast is a rare condition with a variable spectrum ranging from a locally limited lesion to an aggressive, destructive one. The terms fibromatosis, desmoid tumor, and aggressive fibromatosis are often used interchangeably. The etiology of this tumor is unknown; however, it most often affects women during their childbearing age after a trauma or different surgical procedures of the breast. Other suggested risk factors are augmentation mammoplasty with saline or silicone, oral contraceptive pills, chemotherapy, familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome, and Gardner syndrome. This case occurred in childbearing age with a prior history of surgery in the same breast and chemotherapy. Fibromatosis tumor cannot be differentiated from breast carcinoma clinically or by breast imaging. However, imaging has a significant role in detecting and planning treatment and follow-up. On breast imaging, fibromatosis typically appears as an irregularly shaped, noncalcified, high-density mass with a spiculated border, such as our case. The histopathologic differential diagnosis includes reactive processes (scar or biopsy-site reaction), nodular fasciitis, metaplastic carcinoma, and spindle cell–type low-grade fibrosarcoma. The hallmark of histological diagnosis of fibromatosis is the proliferation of the bland-looking spindle cells. Immunohistochemical cytokeratin staining helps rule out carcinoma. In malignant fibrosarcoma, marked cytologic pleomorphism and increased mitotic activity are notable. Breast fibromatosis treatment varies from inflammatory drugs, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, chemotherapy, and radiation to surgical excision. Recent management of fibromatosis has shifted toward nonsurgical options rather than surgery, which was the standard of care in the past. Complete excision can be challenging and require chest wall reconstruction. There is a high rate of local recurrence following surgical excision, reported between 24% and 77% over a 10-year period. None declared. None declared. Afsaneh Alikhassi (Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing) and Mia Skarpathiotakis (Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - review & editing)

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,292
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,514

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Breast ImagingMême sujetSoft tissue tumor case studiesTravaux en français237 207