Complex sclerosing lesions and radial sclerosing lesions on core needle biopsy: Low risk of carcinoma on excision in cases with clinical and imaging concordance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex or radial sclerosing lesions (CSL/RSL) are uncommon diagnoses on core needle biopsy with a reported upgrade rate ranging between 0% and 23%. As a result, their management remains controversial. In this study, we sought to determine the rate of malignancy on excision for patients with pure CSL/RSL on core biopsy, and to evaluate future breast cancer risk when CSL/RSL is managed without excision. We retrospectively reviewed 118 cases of CSL/RSL diagnosed on image-guided breast biopsies between 2005 and 2014 at our institution. Of 98 analyzed patients, 34 (35%) underwent excision and 64 (65%) were observed. Demographic and clinical variables between excision and observation groups were compared. In excised specimens, factors associated with upgrade to malignancy were evaluated. The median age at diagnosis was 49 years (range, 27-88 years). In the excision group, 3/34 cases were associated with malignancy, an overall upgrade rate of 9%. All malignant cases had core needle biopsies interpreted as discordant and were BIRADS 4B or more on imaging. In the observation group, at a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3/64 (5%) patients developed ipsilateral cancers, all of which were distant from the index CSL/RSL. In our series, we report a 9% malignancy rate on excision of BIRADS >4C lesions characterized as CSL/RSL on core biopsy. In patients with concordant biopsies and BIRADS 4A or lower lesions who underwent observation, we found a low rate of subsequent ipsilateral cancers. Further studies are needed to confirm that for CSL/RSL in concordant core biopsies and BIRADS 4A or lower, nonpalpable lesions, observation may be a reasonable alternative to excision.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".