English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This is an update on randomised control trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of 11-gauge mammotome (Ma) to 14-gauge core biopsy (CB). A total of 614 women with impalpable clustered microcalcifications and/or distortions were prospectively recruited in a multicentre (Edgware, King's, Nottingham and Cambridge) RCT. Specimen radiographs were obtained for all biopsies performed for microcalcifications. Complete data for 585 women were analysed. Two hundred and ninety-three CB and 292 Ma had been performed on 554 microcalcifications, two distortions with microcalcifications and 29 distortions. There are 191 cancers (32%) consisting of 54 invasive and 137 in situ carcinoma. Comparing CB and Ma, the absolute sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 79.2% and 80%, respectively, with a complete sensitivity of 89.6% and 96.6%, respectively (P = 0.1). The absolute sensitivity for invasive disease is 33.3% and 58.3%, respectively (P = 0.06). Mammotomy is significantly less likely to under-stage malignant disease when a B3 result is obtained compared to CB (17.5% versus 64%, respectively). The analysis suggests that the greatest benefit of mammotomy is in clustered microcalcification with an indeterminate appearance and in minimising the under-diagnosis of associated malignant disease.

UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) multicentre image guided biopsy trial: an update