<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Chen X</submitter><funding>Guangzhou Science, Technology and Innovation Commission (Bureau of Science and Information Technology of Guangzhou Municipality)</funding><funding>Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU)</funding><funding>Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (Guangdong Natural Science Foundation)</funding><funding>National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China)</funding><pagination>9144</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC11500097</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>15(1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>Oral corticosteroids represents the most prevalent treatment for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis. Ductal lavage with triamcinolone acetonide and antibiotics followed by observation (DL-OBS) has emerged as a novel strategy, but a comparison of them remains lacking. Here in this multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03724903), we assigned 140 patients to oral corticosteroids (N = 71) and DL-OBS (N = 69), stratified by baseline M-score. The primary outcome is complete Clinical Response rate at 1 year. The non-inferiority margin is -15%. The primary outcome is 85.5% in DL-OBS and 87.3% in oral corticosteroids (difference: -1.8%; 95%CI, 13.2 to 9.5; P&lt;sub>non-inferiority&lt;/sub> = .01) in intention-to-treat population, and 92.6% vs 98.2% (</pubmed_abstract><journal>Nature communications</journal><pubmed_title>Ductal lavage followed by observation versus oral corticosteroids in idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: A randomized trial.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC11500097</pmcid><funding_grant_id>#2019A1515011467, #2019A1515110075 and #2021A1515012361</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>#202102010221</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>#82271650</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>#SYS-Q-202002, #20180233</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Hu T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhang J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Huang H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yu F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Su L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Liu Q</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Liu S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gui X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ding L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jiang Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wu W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wang Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhao J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rao N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tan L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen Q</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tan C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zeng Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xiao Q</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ye L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yang Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yong J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhu L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cai X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xu Y</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Ductal lavage followed by observation versus oral corticosteroids in idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: A randomized trial.</name><description>Oral corticosteroids represents the most prevalent treatment for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis. Ductal lavage with triamcinolone acetonide and antibiotics followed by observation (DL-OBS) has emerged as a novel strategy, but a comparison of them remains lacking. Here in this multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03724903), we assigned 140 patients to oral corticosteroids (N = 71) and DL-OBS (N = 69), stratified by baseline M-score. The primary outcome is complete Clinical Response rate at 1 year. The non-inferiority margin is -15%. The primary outcome is 85.5% in DL-OBS and 87.3% in oral corticosteroids (difference: -1.8%; 95%CI, 13.2 to 9.5; P&lt;sub>non-inferiority&lt;/sub> = .01) in intention-to-treat population, and 92.6% vs 98.2% (</description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Oct</publication><modification>2026-07-15T08:05:29.682Z</modification><creation>2025-04-04T02:57:23.917Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC11500097</accession><cross_references><pubmed>39443446</pubmed><doi>10.1038/s41467-024-53143-2</doi></cross_references></HashMap>