Association of core needle biopsies with increase in metastatic dissemination of breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e21090 Background: Given the reported association between incisional procedures performed on cancer patients and subsequent increases in metastasis, as well as the established inverse relationship between metastasis and patient survival, this study establishes the extent to which incisional core needle biopsies (CNB) affects tumor growth and metastatic dissemination in two distinct breast cancer animal models. Methods: Using the chick embryo system (CES) and murine breast cancer model (MuBC)the impact of CNB on cancer metastases was evaluated. Human MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-435 cancer cells were used in the xenograft / CES, and murine 4T1 Breast cancer cells for the syngeneic MuBC . In each model, tumors were biopsied in half of the animals while the other half were left undisturbed (CES:n=40, MuBC:n=40). The impact of CNB on tumor growth, necrosis and metastases was assessed. Metastases levels in the CES was determined by quantitative PCR for human alu sequence DNA in chick tissue extracts. Metastatic burden in the MuBC model was evaluated by microscopic quantification of metastatic areas in sectioned and H-E stained mouse organs. Results: When biopsied and un-biopsied groups were compared, both models showed significant difference in pulmonary metastasis. MDA-MB-435 CES (p=0.025) and 4T1 MuBC (p=0.026). MDA-MB-231 CES showed no significant change in lung metastases in the CES but did however show increased Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) metastasis (p=0.018) and both cell lines showed statistically significant alteration in Liver metastasis, (MDA-MB-231 CES (p=0.006); MDA-MB-435 CES (p=0.004)). Interestingly only MDA-MB-435 (CES) tumor growth was significantly increased after CNB (p=0.002). Conclusions: These results offer the first experimental evidence that core needle biopsies result in an increased risk of metastatic dissemination and affect metastatic tropic behavior. They also reinforce the concept of a multi-step metastatic pathway and suggest involvement of extrinsic factors that influence the extravastion and intravasation steps. The clinical implications are considerable and follow-up studies examining potential mechanisms and countermeasures are urgently required
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".