Upgrade Rate of Percutaneously Diagnosed Pure Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 6458 Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Management of percutaneously diagnosed pure atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is an unresolved clinical issue. Purpose To calculate the pooled upgrade rate of percutaneously diagnosed pure ADH. Materials and Methods A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed in October 2018. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or PRISMA, guidelines were followed. A fixed- or random-effects model was used, along with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for study quality, and the Egger test was used for publication bias. Results Of 521 articles, 93 were analyzed, providing data for 6458 ADHs (5911 were managed with surgical excision and 547 with follow-up). Twenty-four studies used core-needle biopsy; 44, vacuum-assisted biopsy; 21, both core-needle and vacuum-assisted biopsy; and four, unspecified techniques. Biopsy was performed with stereotactic guidance in 29 studies; with US guidance in nine, with MRI guidance in nine, and with mixed guidance in eight. Overall heterogeneity was high (I2 = 80%). Subgroup analysis according to management yielded a pooled upgrade rate of 29% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26%, 32%) for surgically excised lesions and 5% (95% CI: 4%, 8%) for lesions managed with follow-up (P < .001). Heterogeneity was entirely associated with surgically excised lesions (I2 = 78%) rather than those managed with follow-up (I2 = 0%). Most variability was explained by guidance and needle caliper (P = .15). At subgroup analysis of surgically excised lesions, the pooled upgrade rate was 42% (95% CI: 31%, 53%) for US guidance, 23% (95% CI: 19%, 27%) for stereotactic biopsy, and 32% (95% CI: 22%, 43%) for MRI guidance, with heterogeneity (52%, 63%, and 56%, respectively) still showing the effect of needle caliper. When the authors considered patients with apparent complete lesion removal after biopsy (subgroups in 14 studies), the pooled upgrade rate was 14% (95% CI: 8%, 23%). Study quality was low to medium; the risk of publication bias was low (P = .10). Conclusion Because of a pooled upgrade rate higher than 2% (independent of biopsy technique, needle size, imaging guidance, and apparent complete lesion removal), atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed with percutaneous needle biopsy should be managed with surgical excision. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Brem in this issue.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".