Sous-estimation des cicatrices radiaires « pures » : une évaluation rétrospective en centre de lutte contre le cancer

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1016/j.gofs.2025.02.007
Andréa Musard, Marie-Martine Padéano, Nathalie Méjean, Françoise Beltjens, Charles Coutant, Sarah Jacinto
{"title":"Sous-estimation des cicatrices radiaires « pures » : une évaluation rétrospective en centre de lutte contre le cancer","authors":"Andréa Musard,&nbsp;Marie-Martine Padéano,&nbsp;Nathalie Méjean,&nbsp;Françoise Beltjens,&nbsp;Charles Coutant,&nbsp;Sarah Jacinto","doi":"10.1016/j.gofs.2025.02.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56056,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","volume":"53 6","pages":"Pages 286-291"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468718925000625","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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[单纯放射状疤痕的低估:癌症中心的回顾性评估]。
目的:桡骨疤痕(RS)是一种良性病变,但其影像学表现与癌相似。传统上,由于低估的风险,大多数RS通过手术切除。然而,现在的指导方针允许对他们进行监视。本研究的目的是评估被低估的风险,其次是确定相关的风险因素,以及描述随访期间患乳腺癌的妇女比例。方法:这是一项单中心,回顾性,观察性研究,使用2000年1月至2015年12月在癌症中心接受活检确认RS的患者的数据。结果:116例活检显示桡骨瘢痕无异型性。70例患者行手术切除(节段切除术66例(56.9%),真空辅助活检4例(3.4%)),其中“单纯”桡骨疤痕55例(78.6%),异型性桡骨疤痕13例(18.6%),导管原位癌2例(2.9%)。总体低估率为21.4%。对原位癌或浸润性癌的低估率为2.9%。在我们的研究中没有发现低估的预测因素。72例患者的随访数据,其中12例(16.7%)发展为乳腺癌。结论:我们的研究显示,放射状疤痕的低估率为21.4%,没有确定可预测的危险因素,强调了多学科团队讨论的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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…
期刊最新文献
[Therapeutic management of tubal ectopic pregnancies: Clinical practice guidelines of CNGOF and SCGP]. [Preexisting diabetes: Expert consensus from the College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians and from the French Society of Diabetology]. [Feto-maternal hemorrhage: Guidelines of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Expert consensus from a Delphi method]. [CNGOF statement on instrumental vaginal deliveries using vacuum extraction]. [Delivery of twin pregnancies: Guidelines from the College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians].
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1