Journals / The Journal of Breast Health / 2017 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

Pages
23–26
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)

For 42 patients, examinations made by the other clinics were deemed adequate, yet there was no need for biopsy in 22 of them. fte biopsy decisions were cancelled for 27 out of 47 patients (57.4%) with repeat examination and 18 out of 28 patients (64.3%) with additional tests because of the insufficient test quality.Conclusion: Incorrect, inadequate breast screening and false positivity were higher at inexperienced institutes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In this study, we aimed to determine the need for biopsy in patients referred from other clinics for the performance of biopsy with the suspicion of breast cancer.Materials and Methods: 112 patients were included in the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Changes in the biopsy decisions for patients were specifically inquired.Results: fte biopsy decisions were cancelled in our breast radiology unit for 63 out of 112 patients (56.3%) whose biopsy decisions were made at an external institute.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For 42 patients, examinations made by the other clinics were deemed adequate, yet there was no need for biopsy in 22 of them. fte biopsy decisions were cancelled for 27 out of 47 patients (57.4%) with repeat examination and 18 out of 28 patients (64.3%) with additional tests because of the insufficient test quality.Conclusion: Incorrect, inadequate breast screening and false positivity were higher at inexperienced institutes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: In this study, we aimed to determine the need for biopsy in patients referred from other clinics for the performance of biopsy with the suspicion of breast cancer.Materials and Methods: 112 patients were included in the study. It was decided that their biopsies be performed following examinations in other clinics and they presented to the breast radiology unit of our hospital for a second opinion. fte demographic characteristics, diagnostic studies completed in the other centers, properties of lesions, decision made as a result of examinations and BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems) categorizations were recorded on the registration forms of the study patients. In addition, the quality of examinations, reasons of repeat tests, additional tests features and the last decision of our clinic were documented. fte obtained data were analyzed in terms of re-examination, ad- ditional tests and change in the biopsy decision. Changes in the biopsy decisions for patients were specifically inquired.Results: fte biopsy decisions were cancelled in our breast radiology unit for 63 out of 112 patients (56.3%) whose biopsy decisions were made at an external institute. For 42 patients, examinations made by the other clinics were deemed adequate, yet there was no need for biopsy in 22 of them. fte biopsy decisions were cancelled for 27 out of 47 patients (57.4%) with repeat examination and 18 out of 28 patients (64.3%) with additional tests because of the insufficient test quality.Conclusion: Incorrect, inadequate breast screening and false positivity were higher at inexperienced institutes.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRCİOĞLU, Ö., ULUER, M., ARIBAL, E. (2017). How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?. The Journal of Breast Health, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 23–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/361872

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mam- mography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk 1 (Review) Copyright © 2013 fte Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWi- ley & Sons, Ltd. Available from: URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009632.pub2/pdf Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders M, Codd M, de Koning H, Frache- boud J, Moss S, Paci E, Stachenko S, Ballard-Barbash R. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol 1998
  2. (PMID: 9839727) [CrossRef] Anderson W, Jatoi I, Devesa S. Assessing the impact of screening mam- mography: breast cancer incidence and mortality rates in Connecticut (1943–2002). Breast Cancer Res and Treat 2006
  3. (PubMed: 16703451) [CrossRef] Duffy SW, Tabár L, Chen HH, Holmqvist M, Yen MF, Abdsalah S, Ep- stein B, Frodis E, Ljungberg E, Hedborg-Melander C, Sundbom A, fto- lin M, Wiege M, Akerlund A, Wu HM, Tung TS, Chiu YH, Chiu CP, Huang CC, Smith RA, Rosén M, Stenbeck M, Holmberg L. fte impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mor- tality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002
  4. (PubMed: 12209737) [CrossRef] Reddy M, Given-Wilson R. Screening for breast cancer. Women’s Health Medicine 2006
  5. [CrossRef] Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM. On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer. Int J of Epidemiol 2004
  6. (PubMed: 15075144) [CrossRef] Gartlehner G, ftaler K, Chapman A, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Ber- zaczy D, Van Noord MG, Helbich TH. Mammography in combina- tion with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013
  7. CD009632. [CrossRef] Brown J, Coulthard A, Dixon AK, Dixon JM, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Ev- ans DG, Gilbert FG, Hayes C, Jenkins JP, Leach MO, Moss SM, Padhani AP, Pointon LJ,Ponder BA, Sloane JP, Turnbull LW, Walker LG, Warren RM, Watson W
  8. UK MRI Breast Screening Study Advisory Group. Pro- tocol for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer. Breast J 2000
  9. (PMID: 14731703) [CrossRef] Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, Gil- bert FJ, Griebsch I, Hoff RJ, Kessar P, Lakhani SR, Moss SM, Nerurkar A, Padhani AR,