2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.05.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic challenges in clinical, radiological and histopathological tests regarding papillomatous lesions of the breast

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, we detected an increased risk for underestimation in older populations, which is consistent with the reports by Foley et al, Rasmussen et al,and Yu et al [30,32,33]. Therefore, caution is advised when recommending conservative management to that group of patients.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In our study, we detected an increased risk for underestimation in older populations, which is consistent with the reports by Foley et al, Rasmussen et al,and Yu et al [30,32,33]. Therefore, caution is advised when recommending conservative management to that group of patients.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…We were not able to identify morphological features of the lesions on imaging which might become statistically significant predictors of benign or malignant nature of the change, which is consistent with the reports of Rasmussen et al [32].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A previous study indicated that the risk factors for malignant transformation of IDP were older age, larger lesion size and distance from the nipple [8]. A literature review revealed that most IDPs were less than 2 cm, the largest reported IDP was 10.5×6.0×5.0 cm on MRI, and massive size was a predisposing factor for the development of complications [9].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well known that although BI-RADS scoring is an established method to inform the surgeon about high-risk consideration-required breast tumors, the number of discrepant BI-RADS scoring with pathological evaluation is still high. 1,2,5,9 This discrepancy may be due to several parameters, such as nondiagnostic or inadequate sampling in heterogeneous lesions, 2,11 underestimating high-risk or borderline lesions in BI-RADS scoring (such as preneoplastic ductal/ lobular lesions atypical ductal hyperplasia/atypical lobular hyperplasia [ADH 12 /ALH 2 ], papillary lesions of the breast, [39][40][41] flat epithelial atypia (FEA), 13 columnar cell hyperpalsia, 42 phyllodes tumors, 43 complex fibroadenoma, 38 etc. ), 1 or diagnosis with unexperienced radiologists.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%