Journals / The European Research Journal / 2022 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 5

Understanding the paradigma of opportunistic screening

Pages
598–605
Publication Date
2022-09-04
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)

However, the percentage of early-stage tumors was higher in this study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To provide demographical and pathological characteristics of breast cancer patients diagnosed in a tertiary clinic with opportunistic screening and diagnostic workup and compare the results with the available national and global breast cancer statistics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Clinical and pathological data of breast cancer patients diagnosed in our tertiary breast clinic between March 14, 2017 and February 28, 2020 have been entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, the percentage of early-stage tumors was higher in this study.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Breast cancer · histology · stages

Abstract

Objectives: To provide demographical and pathological characteristics of breast cancer patients diagnosed in a tertiary clinic with opportunistic screening and diagnostic workup and compare the results with the available national and global breast cancer statistics. Methods: Clinical and pathological data of breast cancer patients diagnosed in our tertiary breast clinic between March 14, 2017 and February 28, 2020 have been entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively. Results were analyzed and compared with the national and global statistics. Results: The total number of patients included in this study were 137 and the number of tumors was 145. Sixty-four (46.7%) patients were detected in screening. All of the patients were female. The mean age was 51.8 years. Eighteen (13.1%) patients were young females (< 40 years), 55 (40.1%) were in 40-49 years, 26 (18.9%) in 50-59 years, 24 (17.5%) in > 60-69 years, 14 (10.2%) in > 70 years. Of the invasive cancers, 100 (79.4%) were invasive ductal, 15 (11.9%) invasive lobular, 6 (4.8%) pleomorphic lobular, 4 (3.2%) papillary, and 1 (0.8%) tubular cancer. Distribution of stages were: 13.1% stage 0, 38.6% stage I, 29.6% stage II, 10.3% stage III, and 8.2% stage IV. The mean tumor diameter was 26.6 mm. Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2) were positive in 82.5%, 61.9% and 15.8% of the tumors respectively. Conclusions: Results of this study are in accordance with the latest results of the National Breast cancer database, a project governed by the Turkish Federation of Breast Disease Societies (TMHDF), considering the tumor size, age distribution, histologic subtype analysis, receptor status. However, the percentage of early-stage tumors was higher in this study.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLDOĞAN, N., DALDAL, İ., SOYDER, A., YILMAZ, E., ARSLAN, A. (2022). Understanding the paradigma of opportunistic screening. The European Research Journal, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 5, 598–605. https://ajindex.com/articles/703936

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 2019;144:1941-53. 2.
  2. Ozmen V. Breast cancer in Turkey: clinical and histopathological characteristics (analysis of 13.240 patients). J Breast Health 2014;10:98-105
  3. Özmen V, Özmen T, Doğru V. Breast cancer in Turkey: an analysis of 20.000 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Breast Health 2019;15:141-6
  4. Kayhan A, Gurdal SO, Ozaydin N, Cabioglu N, Ozturk E, Ozcinar B, et al. Successful first-round results of a Turkish breast cancer screening program with mammography in Bahcesehir, Istanbul. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:1693-7
  5. Özmen V, Gürdal SÖ, Cabioğlu N, Özcinar B, Özaydin AN, Kayhan A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in Turkey, a developing country: results from Bahçeşehir ammography Screening Project. Eur J Breast Health 2017;13:117-22
  6. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, chapter 32, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 7th edition, 2010. Available from:URL:
  7. DeSantis CE, Bray F, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Anderson BO, Jemal A. International variation in female breast cancer incidence and mortality rates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:1495-506
  8. Porter P. "Westernizing" women's risks? Breast cancer in lower-income countries. N Engl J Med 2008;358:213-6
  9. Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M, et al. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today, accessed: 30 October 2018 11. Agarwal G, Pradeep PV, Aggarwal V, Yip CH, Cheung PS. Spectrum of breast cancer in Asian women. World J Surg 2007;31:1031-40
  10. Peisl S, Zimmermann S, Camey B, Betticher D, Bouchardy C. Comparison between opportunistic and organized breast cancer mammography screening in the Swiss canton of Fribourg. BMC Cancer 2019;19:469
  11. Bihrmann K, Jensen A, Olsen AH, Njor S, Schwartz W, Vejborg I, et al. Performance of systematic and non-systematic (“opportunistic”) screening mammography: a comparative study from Denmark. J Med Screen 2008;15:23-6
  12. Vanier A, Leux C, Allioux C, Bi