Is the outcome at surgery different when flat epithelial atypia and lobular neoplasia are found in association at biopsy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact on the final outcome at surgery of flat epithelial atypia (FEA) when found concomitantly with lobular neoplasia (LN) in biopsy specimens compared with pure biopsy-proven FEA. METHODS: The approval from the institutional review board of the CHUM (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal) was obtained. A retrospective review of our database between 2009 and 2013 identified 81 females (mean age 54 years, range 38-90 years) with 81 FEA biopsy-proven lesions. These were pure or associated with LN only in 59/81 (73%) and 22/81 (27%) cases, respectively. Overall, 57/81 (70%) patients underwent surgery and 24/81 (30%) patients underwent mammographic surveillance with a mean follow-up of 36 months. RESULTS: FEA presented more often as microcalcifications in 68/81 (84%) patients and were mostly amorphous in 49/68 (72%). After excluding radio pathologically discordant cases, pure FEA proved to be malignant at surgery in 1/41 (2%; 95% confidence interval 0.06-12.9). There was no statistically significant difference in the upgrade to malignancy whether FEA lesions were pure or associated to LN at biopsy (p = 0.4245); however, when paired in biopsy specimens, these lesions were more frequently associated with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) at surgery than with pure FEA (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Our results show a 2% upgrade rate to malignancy of pure FEA lesions. When FEA is found in association with LN at biopsy, surgical excision yields more frequently ADH than pure FEA thus warranting close surveillance or even surgical excision. Advances in knowledge: The association of LN with FEA at biopsy was more frequently associated with ADH at surgery than with pure FEA. If a biopsy-proven FEA lesion is deemed concordant with the imaging finding, when paired with LN at biopsy, careful surveillance or even surgical excision is suggested.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".