↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ at percutaneous core needle and vacuum-assisted biopsies of the breast in a Brazilian reference institution

Overview of attention for article published in Radiologia Brasileira, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ at percutaneous core needle and vacuum-assisted biopsies of the breast in a Brazilian reference institution
Published in
Radiologia Brasileira, February 2016
DOI 10.1590/0100-3984.2014.0110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustavo Machado Badan, Decio Roveda Júnior, Sebastião Piato, Eduardo de Faria Castro Fleury, Mário Sérgio Dantas Campos, Carlos Alberto Ferreira Pecci, Felipe Augusto Trocoli Ferreira, Camila D'Ávila

Abstract

To determine the rates of diagnostic underestimation at stereotactic percutaneous core needle biopsies (CNB) and vacuum-assisted biopsies (VABB) of nonpalpable breast lesions, with histopathological results of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) subsequently submitted to surgical excision. As a secondary objective, the frequency of ADH and DCIS was determined for the cases submitted to biopsy. Retrospective review of 40 cases with diagnosis of ADH or DCIS on the basis of biopsies performed between February 2011 and July 2013, subsequently submitted to surgery, whose histopathological reports were available in the internal information system. Biopsy results were compared with those observed at surgery and the underestimation rate was calculated by means of specific mathematical equations. The underestimation rate at CNB was 50% for ADH and 28.57% for DCIS, and at VABB it was 25% for ADH and 14.28% for DCIS. ADH represented 10.25% of all cases undergoing biopsy, whereas DCIS accounted for 23.91%. The diagnostic underestimation rate at CNB is two times the rate at VABB. Certainty that the target has been achieved is not the sole determining factor for a reliable diagnosis. Removal of more than 50% of the target lesion should further reduce the risk of underestimation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 9%
Unknown 10 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 36%
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 36%
Arts and Humanities 1 9%
Unknown 6 55%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#10,023,994
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Radiologia Brasileira
#155
of 253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,686
of 366,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiologia Brasileira
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 253 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.