Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of underestimation rates of BLES in literature

From: A systematic review on the use of the breast lesion excision system in breast disease

First author

ADH underestimation rate n/N (%)

DCIS underestimation

rate n/N (%)

Sie et al. (4)

3/32 (9.4)

6/115 (5.2)

Killebrew et al. (9)

NA

1/31 (3.2)

Allen et al. (5)

NA

NA

Seror et al. (10)

0/4 (0)

6/27 (22.2)

Diepstraten et al. (11)

NA

0/3 (0)

Whitworth et al. (6)

3/32 (9.4)a

NA

Razek et al. (12)

0/14 (0)

0/8 (0)

Medjhoul et al. (13)

0/4 (0)b

1/9 (11.1)

Al-Harethee et al. (7)

NA

NA

Allen et al. (14)

0/6 (0)

0/11 (0)

Al-Harethee et al. (15)

NA

NA

Scaperrotta et al. (16)

NA

5/32 (15.6)

Graham (17)

1/38 (2.6)b

0/8 (0)

Milos et al. (20)

2/14 (14.3)b

0/10 (0)

Sklair-Levy et al. (21)

NA

NA

Papapanagiotou et al. (22)

NA

0/5 (0)

Niinikoski et al. (23)

NA

NA

  1. ADH atypical ductal hyperplasia; DCIS ductal carcinoma in situ; n number of DCIS/IC reference (initially ADH) or number of IC reference (initially DCIS); N total number of initially ADH or DCIS; NA not available
  2. a23/32 based on open surgical excision, 6/32 based on image follow-up
  3. bHigh-risk lesion underestimation