Journals / Meme Sağlığı Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 4

Differences in breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment among Turkish university hospitals

Türkiye'deki üniversite hastanelerinde meme kanseri tanı ve cerrahi tedavisindeki uygulama farklılıkları

Pages
207–215
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)

Lack of infrastructure and multidisciplinary team work were the main problems on improving quality of breast care in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: In this study we aimed to determine the practice patterns on both diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer patients at university hospitals in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Data from 42 hospitals and 4982 breast cancer patients who were operated in 2009 were assessed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Lack of infrastructure and multidisciplinary team work were the main problems on improving quality of breast care in Turkey.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: In this study we aimed to determine the practice patterns on both diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer patients at university hospitals in Turkey. Patients and Methods: A questionnaire which asks the demographics and clinical findings of patients as well as infrastructure of hospitals and patterns of breast cancer treatment was prepared and sent to general surgeons who practice in university hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively and no comparison was done among institutions. Descriptive results were given. Results: Data from 42 hospitals and 4982 breast cancer patients who were operated in 2009 were assessed. Excisional biopsy were the most common tissue diagnostic procedure in all regions except Marmara region. Breast conserving surgery was the most preferred surgical method for early breast cancer in all over Turkey except South-Eastern and Mediterranean regions. Multidisciplinary team work was performed in 26 institutions. Conclusion: This study showed that there are wide differences in means of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in different geographic regions in Turkey, therefore no homogeneity in breast health service at those hospitals which answered the questionnaire. It seems that there is still need to implement internationally agreed consensus quality measures in practice. Lack of infrastructure and multidisciplinary team work were the main problems on improving quality of breast care in Turkey.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de tıp fakültesi hastanelerinde meme kanseri cerrahi tedavisi ile ilgili sorunların belirlenmesi ve tanı / tedavi kalitesini artırmanın yollarının araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Hastalar ve Yöntem: Yedi coğrafi bölgede 3. basamak merkez olarak belirlenen üniversite hastanelerinde meme kanseri tedavisi konsepti ve kaynakları ile bu merkezlerde 2009 yılında ameliyat edilen meme kanseri hastalarına uygulanan yaklaşımları sorgulayan bir anket hazırlandı. Ankete yanıt veren merkezlerin verileri değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çalışmaya katılan 42 merkezde 2009 yılında ameliyat edilen 4982 hastanın verileri çalışma için değerlendirildi. Marmara bölgesi hariç diğer bölgelerde en sık kullanılan tanı yöntemi eksizyonel biyopsi idi. Tanı anındaki evre ile ilgili olarak Türkiye’de bölgeler arasında büyük farklılıklar saptandı. Meme koruyucu cerrahi Güneydoğu Anadolu ve Akdeniz Bölgeleri dışında erken evre meme kanserinde en çok uygulanan ameliyat tipi idi. Yirmialtı (%62) merkezin mültidisipliner takım çalışması ile tanı ve tedavi uyguladığı saptandı. Sonuç: Bu çalışma ile ülkemizde meme kanseri hastalarının tanı ve tedavisinde bir homojenite olmadığı, coğrafi bölgelere göre uygulama farklılıkları olduğu görülmüştür. Uluslararası kurumlarca ortaya konan standartların hala ülkemizde yaygın olarak uygulanmadığı saptanmıştır. Altyapı yetersizliği ve tanı / tedavide multidisipliner değerlendirmenin olmaması en önemli eksiklikler olarak görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

CANTÜRK, N. Z., GÜLLÜOĞLU, B. M. (2011). Differences in breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment among Turkish university hospitals. Meme Sağlığı Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 4, 207–215. https://ajindex.com/articles/278125

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. P arkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002, CA Cancer J Clin, 2005; 55(2): 74–108. (PMID=15761078
  2. Özmen V. Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de meme kanseri tarama ve kayıt programları. In. Tuncer M, ed. Türkiye’de Kanser Kontrolü. Ankara:Onur Matbaacılık, 2007:337-345
  3. Fidaner C, Eser SY, Parkin DM. Incidence in Izmir in 1993–1994: first results from Izmir Cancer Registry, Eur J Cancer, 2001; 37: 83–92. (PMID:11165134
  4. Tuncer M. Significance of cancer in Turkey, the burden of disease, and cancer control policies. In: Tuncer M, ed. Cancer Control in Turkey, Health Ministry Publication, Onur Press:Ankara, 2008; 74: 5–9
  5. Ozmen V. Breast cancer in the world and Turkey, J Breast Health, 2008; 4: 6–12
  6. Ozmen V. Breast cancer screening and registration programs in Turkey. In: Tuncer M ed. Cancer Control in Turkey, Health Ministry Publication. Ankara: Onur Press, 2008; 740: 335–43
  7. Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, Bauer M, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Deutsch M, Montague E, Margolese R, Foster R. Ten years results of randomized clinical trial comparing radical mastectomy and total mastectomy with or without radiation. NEJM 1985; 312: 674-81.( PMID:3883168
  8. Veronesi U, Cascinelli M, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, Aguilar M, Marubini E. Twenty year follow up of a randomized study comparing breast conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. NEJM 2002; 347: 1227-1232. (PMID:12393819
  9. Consensus statement: Treatment of early stage breast cancer. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1992; 11: 1-5. (PMID: 1627416) 10.
  10. Ko C, Chaudhry S. The need for a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care. J Surg Res 2002; 105:53-7. (PMID:12069502
  11. Houssami N, Sainsbury R. Breast cancer: Multidisciplinary care and clinical outcomes. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 2480-2491. (PMID:16904313
  12. Özmen V. How the quality of surgical treatment of breast cancer is increased in Turkey? J Breast Health 2009; 5: 122-124
  13. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol 2008; 19:614-622.( PMID:18024988
  14. Morrogh M, Zanini V, Regolo L, Ballardini B, Wiechmann L, Sacchini V. Breast conserving surgery. In: Kuerer HM ed. Kuerer’s Breast Surgical Oncology. New York:McGraw-Hill Co.,