Journals / Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

Common conflict in surgery: How to evaluate breast microcalcifications?

Cerrahide sık karşılaşılan bir çelişki: Memedeki mikrokalsifikasyonlara ne yapmalıyız?

Pages
123–125
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: All microcalcifications in the breast should be evaluated by excisional biopsy beyond the core biopsy

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Breast cancer is still one of the leading causes of death among women.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Data from a total of 74 patients, who had microcalcifications in mamography and undergone wire-guided excision, was evaluated prospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: All microcalcifications in the breast should be evaluated by excisional biopsy beyond the core biopsy
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Breast cancer is still one of the leading causes of death among women. Microcalcifications are important cues for the early diagnosis of breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Data from a total of 74 patients, who had microcalcifications in mamography and undergone wire-guided excision, was evaluated prospectively. Results: Pathologic examination showed 35% of patients (n=26) had ductal carcinoma in situ and / or invasive ductal carcinoma. 60% (n=6) of 10 lesions that were considered as benign preoperatively, diagnosed as benign in pathological evaluation whereas 65.6% (n=42) of 64 lesions that were considered as suspicious preoperatively diagnosed as benign by pathological avaluation. Conclusion: All microcalcifications in the breast should be evaluated by excisional biopsy beyond the core biopsy

Özet

Amaç: Meme kanseri halen kadın ölümlerine yol açan nedenler arasındadır. Mikrokalsifikasyonlar meme kanserinin erken tanısı için önemli ipuçlarıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kliniğimizde mamografide mikrokalsifikasyon saptanan ve telle işaretleme yardımı ile eksizyon uygulanan toplam 74 hastanın verileri prospektif olarak incelendi. Bulgular: Patolojik inceleme sonucunda, hastaların %35’inde (n=26) duktal karsinoma in situ ve/veya invazif duktal karsinom olduğu tespit edildi. Preoperatif olarak benign lezyonu olduğu düşünülen 10 hastanın %60’ının (n=6) patolojik incelemede de benign lezyonu olduğu görülürken; preoperatif olarak şüpheli lezyonu olduğu düşünülen 64 hastanın %65.6’sının (n=42) patolojik incelemede benign lezyonu olduğu görüldü. Sonuç: Memedeki tüm mikrokalsifikasyonlar kalın iğne biyopsisinin ötesinde, eksizyonel biyopsi ile değerlendirilmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZKURT, M. A., GÖNENÇ, M., GEMİCİ, E., ÖZTÜRK, E., KAPAN, S., ALIŞ, H. (2012). Common conflict in surgery: How to evaluate breast microcalcifications?. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 123–125. https://ajindex.com/articles/129370

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Rodriguez GA, Gonzalez JA, Altamirano L, Guichard JS, Diaz R. Microcalcifications detection using Fisher’s linear discriminant and breast density. Adv Exp Med Biol 2011; 696: 451-459
  2. Dingari NC, Barman I, Saha A, et al. Development and comparative assessment of Raman spectroscopic classification algorithms for lesion discrimination in stereotactic breast biopsies with microcalcifications. J Biophotonics 2012 Jul 20. doi: 10.1002/jbio.201200098
  3. Muttarak M, Kongmebhol P, Sukhamwang N. Breast calcifications: which are malignant? Singapore Med J 2009; 50: 907-913
  4. Machado P, Eisenbrey JR, Cavanaugh B, Forsberg F. New image processing technique for evaluating breast microcalcifications: a comparative study. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31: 885-893
  5. Fischer T, Grigoryev M, Bossenz S, et al. Sonographic detection of microcalcifications-potential of new method. Ultraschall Med 2012; 33: 357-365
  6. Mellado M, Osa AM, Murillo A, et al. Impact of digital mammography in the detection and management of microcalcifications. Radiologia 2011: Oct 18
  7. Gufler H, Wagner S, Franke FE. The interior structure of breast microcalcifications assessed with micro computed tomography. Acta Radiol 2011; 52: 592-596
  8. Evans A. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: radiological diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res 2003; 5: 250-253
  9. Reedijk M, Hodgson N, Gohla G, et al. A prospective study of tumor and technical factors associated with positive margins in breastconservation therapy for nonpalpable malignancy. Am J Surg. 2012; 204: 263-268
  10. Venegas R, Rutgers JL, Cameron BL, Vargas H, Butler JA. Fine needle aspiration cytology of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol 1994; 38: 136-143
  11. Hahn SY, Shin JH, Han BK, Ko EY. Sonographically-guided vacuumassisted biopsy with digital mammography-guided skin marking of suspicious breast microcalcifications: comparison of outcomes with stereotactic biopsy in Asian women. Acta Radiol. 2011; 52: 29-34
  12. Gonçalves AV, Thuler LC, Kestelman FP, Carmo PA, Lima CF, Cipolotti R. Underestimation of malignancy of core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2011; 33: 123-131
  13. Evans A, Blanks R. Should there be an upper limit for the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at mammographic screening? An analysis using data from the UK NHS breast screening programme. Clin Radiol 2002; 57: 1086-1089
  14. Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atyp