Vacuum-assisted complete excision of solid intraductal/intracystic masses and complex cysts: Is follow-up necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Management of complex cysts and benign intraductal/intracystic masses is controversial. The aim of this study was to determine if the complete removal of the complex cyst lesions with ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted excision (US-VAE) is sufficient for their safe management when the histological diagnosis obtained at biopsy is benign. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This is a single institution retrospective study performed on patients who underwent breast biopsy between April 2007 and September 2013. Patients with complete removal of complex cyst lesion of a BIRADS 4 lesion by US-VAE that obtained a benign diagnosis were included. Size, morphology, histological diagnosis, and surgical or imaging follow-up of the lesions were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 131 lesions met the inclusion criteria. Benign papilloma represented 32% (42/131) of the lesions; the remaining lesions had various benign diagnoses. Mean size of the solid mass or the cysts' thickest septum was 7 mm (range, 2-24). Mean imaging follow-up was 34.9 months (24-99 months) in 115 lesions. No recurrence or malignancy in the post-biopsy bed were observed during follow-up. Eleven lesions (8.4%) underwent surgery as follow-up: no cancer was found, but two lesions demonstrated atypia. CONCLUSIONS: Complex cyst lesion image completely excised with US-VAE and with a benign histology at biopsy might not require further imaging follow-up or surgery and a return to routine screening can be safely recommended. In a world where healthcare delivery and accessibility is important, elimination of unnecessary follow-ups is pertinent given its lower cost and lesser social impact.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".