Upgrade Rate and Predictive Factors Associated With Breast Papillary Lesions on Core Biopsy: A Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Papillary lesions of the breast are a heterogeneous group, encompassing a wide range of lesions. The histologic distinction between papillary breast lesions remains challenging, especially on core biopsy specimens. Aim: This study aimed to determine the rate of upgrade to atypia or malignancy of biopsy-proven papillary lesions on surgical follow-up and to assess for factors associated with an upgrade in Greater Vancouver, BC, Canada. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective population-based study of all breast papillary lesions diagnosed on core biopsy between 2017 and 2019 in the Fraser Health Authority in Greater Vancouver, Canada. Patients were retrieved from the laboratory information system. Patient demographics, histopathologic, and radiologic findings were analyzed. Results: A total of 269 specimens from 269 patients (mean 61.1 years), including 265 female and 4 male patients, were included in the study. Of the 269 specimens, 129 (48%) were intraductal papillomas and 140 (52%) were atypical papillary lesions. The overall upgrade rate among papillomas was 11.6% (15 of 129) on final excision. The mean age of patients diagnosed with papilloma on core biopsy was significantly younger than those with atypical papillary lesions (55.6 vs 66.1 years, P < .0001). Lesion size in patients with papillomas on core biopsy was significantly smaller than those with atypical papillary lesions (11.1 vs 15.1 mm, P = .001). The upgrade rates in patients <55 and ≥55 years were 4.9% and 13.2%. Size ( P = .004) and atypia on core biopsy ( P = .009) were significantly associated with upgrade. Older age (>55 years) (OR = 5.3, 95% CI: 1.04-27.08) was an independent predictor of upgrade among papillomas. Size, location, and Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) radiologic categories in our study were not associated with predicting the upgrade of papillomas. Conclusion: Our data suggest that the risk of upgrade to atypia or malignancy is sufficient to warrant the excision of benign papillomas of any size in patients aged ≥55 years. In patients younger than 55 years, observation with close clinical and radiological follow-up without surgery may be sufficient. Our findings also support surgical excision of papillomas diagnosed on core biopsy when associated with atypia.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".