Low Frequency of Cancer Occurrence in Same Breast Quadrant Diagnosed with Lobular Neoplasia at Percutaneous Needle Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the type of mammographic abnormality leading to needle biopsy of lobular neoplasia (LN) and define the clinical evolution of low-risk LN lesions diagnosed at needle biopsy but not surgically removed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Among 16 945 needle biopsies performed between April 1998 and August 2008, LN was determined to be the most suspicious lesion in 352 samples (2.1%) (pleomorphic and necrotic forms were excluded). Among 299 pure LN lesions that were not surgically removed, follow-up was available for 276 lesions in 275 women. RESULTS: Needle biopsy was performed because of mammographic calcifications in 215 of the 276 lesions (77.9%) and because of mammographic masses in 35 (12.7%). The mean follow-up was 5.0 years ± 2.4 (range, 0.6-12.2 years). All 275 women underwent one mammographic follow-up, 205 (74.5%) underwent a second mammographic follow-up, and 147 (53.5%) underwent a third mammographic follow-up. Cancer was diagnosed in 27 of the 275 cases (9.8%) after a mean of 3.9 years ± 2.6 (range, 1.2-10.8 years). Only three cancers (1.1%) occurred in the same breast quadrant as the one originally diagnosed with LN at needle biopsy. CONCLUSION: Lumpectomy of pure LN lesions may not prevent malignancy in most cases. Consequently, women with pure LN of a low-risk type diagnosed at needle biopsy are strongly encouraged to undergo a yearly breast clinical examination and yearly mammographic follow-up to detect an eventual cancer in its early stages.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".