Journals / European Journal of Breast Health / 2018 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 4

Impact of The Method of Diagnosis on The Stage of Breast Carcinoma

Pages
225–228
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Objective: Screening mammography is recommended to women at a certain age to achieve an early diagnosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Screening mammography is recommended to women at a certain age to achieve an early diagnosis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study is to findout how breast carcinoma was diagnosed and the impact of the method of diagnosis on the stage of the tumor.Materials and Methods: In this study, 903 operated breast cancer patients, between 2010-2016, in a large volume Marmara University IstanbulPendik Education and Research Hospital were analyzed retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Three patients presenting with nipple discharge had positive axillary lymph nodes (p=0.137).Conclusion: This study demonstrated that breast cancer screening programs in Turkey needs improvement and at the same time shows that screening with mammography after 40 years of age should be done annually despite Ministry of Health recommendations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010-2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Screening mammography is recommended to women at a certain age to achieve an early diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to findout how breast carcinoma was diagnosed and the impact of the method of diagnosis on the stage of the tumor.Materials and Methods: In this study, 903 operated breast cancer patients, between 2010-2016, in a large volume Marmara University IstanbulPendik Education and Research Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. Patients presenting with clinical symptoms and those diagnosed with screening were investigated separately. The percentage of the patients diagnosed with symptoms and the impact of the method of diagnosis on the stage ofthe tumor was the primary outcome of the study.Results: 738 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria with complete clinical records were analyzed. 126 patients (17%) were in the age range of 19-39years, while 32% (236 patients) were 40-50 and 51% (376 patients) were older than 50 years.485 patients (65.7%) were diagnosed with a mass in the breast, while 241 (32.6%) patients were diagnosed with screening with mammography.Twelve patients (1.7%) presented with nipple discharge. Median tumor sizes measured in the resected specimen were 22 mm, 21 mm, and 21 mmin patients diagnosed with a mass, screening, and nipple discharge respectively. The difference among the groups were not significant (p=0.460).Axillary lymph nodes were positive in 210 (43.3%) of patients presenting with a mass in the breast while 85 patients (35.3%) diagnosed with screening had metastatic lymph nodes in the axilla. Three patients presenting with nipple discharge had positive axillary lymph nodes (p=0.137).Conclusion: This study demonstrated that breast cancer screening programs in Turkey needs improvement and at the same time shows that screening with mammography after 40 years of age should be done annually despite Ministry of Health recommendations.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDİM, A., AKTAN, A. Ö., ZIVALI, D., KAYIKÇI, G., DOĞU, S., PEHLİVAN, G. (2022). Impact of The Method of Diagnosis on The Stage of Breast Carcinoma. European Journal of Breast Health, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 4, 225–228. https://ajindex.com/articles/510848

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C,Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: E359- E386. (PMID: 25220842) [CrossRef] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67: 7-30. (PMID: 28055103) [CrossRef] Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, Smith RA et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38: 625-651. (PMID: 10943268) [CrossRef] Gotzsche PC,Jorgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. The Cochrane Library 2013. [CrossRef] Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1438-1447. (PMID: 27732805) [CrossRef] Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1998-2005. (PMID: 23171096) [CrossRef] Ozmen V, Fidaner C, Aksaz E, Bayol U, Dede I, Goker E, Gulluoglu BM, Işıkdoğan A, Topa U, Uhri M, Utkan Z, Zengin N, Tuncer M. Organizing Early Diagnosis and Screening Programs for Breast Cancer in Turkey “ The report of breast cancer early detection and screening Sub-Comittiee, National Cancer Advisory Board The Ministry of Health of Turkey”. Eur J Breast Health 2009; 5: 125-134.
  2. Ozmen V, Gurdal SO, Cabioglu N, Ozcinar B, Ozaydın AN, Kayhan A, Aribal E, Sahin C, Saip P, Alagoz O. Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening in Turkey, a Developing Country: Results from Bahçeşehir Mammography Screening Project. Eur J Breast Health 2017; 13: 117-122. (PMID: 28894850) [CrossRef] Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, Morris E, Pisano E, Schnall M, Sener S, Smith RA, Warner E, Yaffe M, Andrews KS, Russell CA; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 75-89. (PMID: 17392385) [CrossRef ] Gierach GL, Yang XR, Figueroa JD, Sherman ME. Emerging concepts in breast cancer risk prediction. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 2013; 2: 43-52. (PMID: 25506515) [CrossRef] Akman M, Sakarya S, Sargın M, Unluoglu I, Egici MT, Boerma WG, Schäfer WL. Changes in primary care provision in Turkey: A comparison of 1993 and 2012. Health Policy 2017; 121: 197-206. (PMID: 27