[Underestimation of Pure Radial Scars: a Retrospective Evaluation in a Cancer Center].

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Andréa Musard, Marie-Martine Padéano, Nathalie Méjean, Françoise Beltjens, Charles Coutant, Sarah Jacinto
{"title":"[Underestimation of Pure Radial Scars: a Retrospective Evaluation in a Cancer Center].","authors":"Andréa Musard, Marie-Martine Padéano, Nathalie Méjean, Françoise Beltjens, Charles Coutant, Sarah Jacinto","doi":"10.1016/j.gofs.2025.02.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Radial scars (RS) are benign lesions, but their imaging appearance can mimic that of carcinoma. Traditionally, most RS were surgically excised due to the risk of underestimation. However, guidelines now exist allowing for their surveillance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of underestimation and, secondarily, to identify associated risk factors, as well as to describe the proportion of women who developed breast cancer during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study conducted using data from patients who underwent biopsies identifying RS in a cancer center between January 2000 and December 2015.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 116 biopsies revealing radial scars without atypia were analyzed. Seventy patients underwent excision (66 [56.9%] via segmentectomy and 4 [3.4%] via vacuum-assisted biopsy), among which 55 were classified as \"pure\" radial scars (78.6%), 13 as radial scars with atypia (18.6%), and 2 as ductal carcinoma in situ (2.9%). The overall underestimation rate was 21.4%. The underestimation rate for carcinoma (in situ or invasive) was 2.9%. No predictive factors for underestimation were identified in our study. Follow-up data were available for 72 patients, among whom 12 (16.7%) developed breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study shows an underestimation rate of 21.4% for radial scars, with no predictive risk factors identified, emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary team discussions.</p>","PeriodicalId":56056,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2025.02.007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Radial scars (RS) are benign lesions, but their imaging appearance can mimic that of carcinoma. Traditionally, most RS were surgically excised due to the risk of underestimation. However, guidelines now exist allowing for their surveillance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of underestimation and, secondarily, to identify associated risk factors, as well as to describe the proportion of women who developed breast cancer during follow-up.

Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study conducted using data from patients who underwent biopsies identifying RS in a cancer center between January 2000 and December 2015.

Results: A total of 116 biopsies revealing radial scars without atypia were analyzed. Seventy patients underwent excision (66 [56.9%] via segmentectomy and 4 [3.4%] via vacuum-assisted biopsy), among which 55 were classified as "pure" radial scars (78.6%), 13 as radial scars with atypia (18.6%), and 2 as ductal carcinoma in situ (2.9%). The overall underestimation rate was 21.4%. The underestimation rate for carcinoma (in situ or invasive) was 2.9%. No predictive factors for underestimation were identified in our study. Follow-up data were available for 72 patients, among whom 12 (16.7%) developed breast cancer.

Conclusions: Our study shows an underestimation rate of 21.4% for radial scars, with no predictive risk factors identified, emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary team discussions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie
Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité & Sénologie est un mensuel scientifique d''information et de formation destiné aux gynécologues, aux obstétriciens, aux sénologues et aux biologistes de la reproduction. La revue, dans ses éditoriaux, articles originaux, mises au point, lettres à la rédaction et autres rubriques, donne une information actualisée ayant trait à l''obstétrique et à la gynécologie et aux différentes spécialités développées à partir de ces deux pôles : médecine de la reproduction, médecine maternelle et fœtale, périnatalité, endocrinologie, chirurgie gynécologique, cancérologie pelvienne, sénologie, sexualité, psychosomatique…
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信