Table 2 Multivariable analysis of baseline characteristics for pathological underestimation.

From: Pathological underestimation and biomarkers concordance rates in breast cancer patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ at preoperative biopsy

 

OR

95%CI

P valuea

Imaging manifestations of calcification (Present vs. Absent)

0.81

0.65–1.73

0.809

US BI-RADS (≥ 5 category vs. < 5 category)

0.86

0.54–1.36

0.520

MMG BI-RADS (≥ 4B category vs. < 4B category)

0.82

0.51–1.33

0.424

MRI BI-RADS (≥ 5 category vs. < 5 category)

2.03

1.30–3.15

0.002

Tumor size (cm)

0.075

 2.1–5.0 vs. ≤ 2.0

1.94

0.93–4.08

0.079

 > 5.0 vs. ≤ 2.0

1.79

1.06–3.02

0.028

Nuclear grade at biopsy

0.011

 High vs. Low/ intermediate

2.01

1.27–3.18

0.003

 Unknown vs. Low/ intermediate

1.55

0.86–2.80

0.142

Biopsy method (VAB vs. CNB)

0.81

0.28–2.32

0.691

PR at biopsy (Positive vs. Negative)

0.98

0.65–1.48

0.913

Ki-67 at biopsy (≥ 14% vs. < 14%)

1.07

0.70–1.62

0.767

  1. P values were estimated using Binary logistic regression (backward LR).
  2. OR Odds Ratios, CI confidence interval, US BI-RADS Ultrasound Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, MMG BI-RADS Mammography Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, MRI BI-RADS Magnetic Resonance Imaging Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, CNB core needle biopsy, VAB Vacuum-assisted biopsy, ER estrogen receptor, PR progesterone receptor, HER2 human epidermal growth factor Receptor 2, Ki-67 Proliferation index;
  3. Significant values are in [bold].
Back to article page