MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast Lesions of Uncertain Malignant Potential: A Challenge for Surgeons.

2009· article· en· W2059638529 on OpenAlexaff
N Deslauriers, Guy Leblanc, Lucas Sidéris, Pierre‐André Dubé, Yves Leclerc, M Dufresne

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLobular carcinomaDuctal carcinomaBiopsyScarsBreast cancerCarcinomaRadiologySurgeryAtypical hyperplasiaCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The need for surgical resection of brest lesions of uncertain malignant potential diagnosed at core biopsy is not well established. The aim of our study was to determine the incidence of these lesions on core biopsy and to find the rate of upgrade at surgery and during follow-up.Material and Methods :All breast biopsies at Maisonneuve-Rosemont hospital were prospectively collected from November 1999 to December 2008. We reviewed the records of all patients diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical lobular neoplasia (ALH), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and radial scar during that period. Patients were excluded if there was also presence of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ on the biopsy. An upgrade was defined as the presence of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ on the surgical specimen.Results: During that period, 9325 breast biopsies were done. The women were aged from 37 to 89 years with a mean age of 56 years and were followed for an average of 27 months .There were 20 patients with LCIS (0.2%), 36 ALH (0.4%), 60 radial scars (0.6%) and 110 ADH (1.2%). For lobular neoplasia, 85% of LCIS patients had surgical resection with an upgrade rate of 29% (5/17). On follow-up no patients developed a breast cancer at the site biopsied. 28% of ALH had surgical resection with only one patient presenting an upgrade. For radial scars 58% had surgical resection with an upgrade rate of 3/35 (8%). In all three patients with an upgrade, the biopsy was done on an hypoechogenic lesion. No patients with a radial scar visible only on mammogram presented an upgrade and no patients on follow-up developed a cancer at the site of biopsy. For patients with ADH, 48% had a surgical excision (53/110) with an upgrade rate of 18.9% (9/53). Nine patients of the 49 who did not undergo a surgical excision developed a cancer at the site of biopsy during follow-up (18%). Also, during follow-up, 51% of the patients with ADH who did not have surgery had to be rebiosied around the site of the previous biopsy.Conclusion: The important rate of upgrade in LCIS and ADH mandates a surgical excision when these lesions are found on biopsy results. Also, surgical excision for women with ADH might spare the stress of repeat investigation and biopsy. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 4012.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207