KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 11

Correlation between histopathological results and BI-RADS classification in breast masses

Burhan Hakan KANAT
Nizamettin KUTLUER
Ali Aksu
Hülagu KARGICI
Ferhat ÇAY
Ayşe Azak BOZAN
Mehmet Buğra BOZAN
Sayfa
2698–2701
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Of the masses determined to be benign, 21 cases (100%) were classified as BI-RADS 3, 43cases (97.72%) as BI-RADS 4a, 34 cases (97.14%) as BI-RADS 4b, 8 cases (36.36%) as BI-RADS 4 and 1 case as BI-RADS 5 (3.57%).Of the malignant masses, 1 case (2.28%) was classified as BI-RADS 4a, 1 (2.86%) as BI-RADS 4b, 14 cases (63.64%) as BI-RADS 4cand 27 cases (96.43%) as BI-RADS 5.Conclusion: In the light of these data, we believe that the division of BI-RADS category 4 into sub-categories play an important rolein management of breast masses.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of BI-RADS Classification by evaluating the correlation between BI-RADSClassification System and pathology results of patients admitted to the general surgery outpatient clinic of our hospital with thecomplaints of breast lump, breast pain and nipple discharge.Material and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted between 2009 and 2011.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The study included a total of 150 femalepatients, who applied to the Research and Training Hospital General Surgery Polyclinics with the complaints of breast lump, painand discharge which were classified as BIRADS-3, BIRADS-4 (4a, 4b, 4c) subcategories and BIRADS-5 category, and were evaluatedusing the epicrisis forms, test results (radiological imaging and tumor markers) and pathology reports.Results: The study included a total of 150 patients; 21 of which were classified as BI-RADS 3, 44 as BI-RADS 4a, 35 as BI-RADS 4b,22 as BI-RADS 4c and 28 as BI-RADS 5.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Of the masses determined to be benign, 21 cases (100%) were classified as BI-RADS 3, 43cases (97.72%) as BI-RADS 4a, 34 cases (97.14%) as BI-RADS 4b, 8 cases (36.36%) as BI-RADS 4 and 1 case as BI-RADS 5 (3.57%).Of the malignant masses, 1 case (2.28%) was classified as BI-RADS 4a, 1 (2.86%) as BI-RADS 4b, 14 cases (63.64%) as BI-RADS 4cand 27 cases (96.43%) as BI-RADS 5.Conclusion: In the light of these data, we believe that the division of BI-RADS category 4 into sub-categories play an important rolein management of breast masses.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2009 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of BI-RADS Classification by evaluating the correlation between BI-RADSClassification System and pathology results of patients admitted to the general surgery outpatient clinic of our hospital with thecomplaints of breast lump, breast pain and nipple discharge.Material and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted between 2009 and 2011. The study included a total of 150 femalepatients, who applied to the Research and Training Hospital General Surgery Polyclinics with the complaints of breast lump, painand discharge which were classified as BIRADS-3, BIRADS-4 (4a, 4b, 4c) subcategories and BIRADS-5 category, and were evaluatedusing the epicrisis forms, test results (radiological imaging and tumor markers) and pathology reports.Results: The study included a total of 150 patients; 21 of which were classified as BI-RADS 3, 44 as BI-RADS 4a, 35 as BI-RADS 4b,22 as BI-RADS 4c and 28 as BI-RADS 5. Of the masses determined to be benign, 21 cases (100%) were classified as BI-RADS 3, 43cases (97.72%) as BI-RADS 4a, 34 cases (97.14%) as BI-RADS 4b, 8 cases (36.36%) as BI-RADS 4 and 1 case as BI-RADS 5 (3.57%).Of the malignant masses, 1 case (2.28%) was classified as BI-RADS 4a, 1 (2.86%) as BI-RADS 4b, 14 cases (63.64%) as BI-RADS 4cand 27 cases (96.43%) as BI-RADS 5.Conclusion: In the light of these data, we believe that the division of BI-RADS category 4 into sub-categories play an important rolein management of breast masses.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KANAT, B. H., KUTLUER, N., Aksu, A., KARGICI, H., ÇAY, F., BOZAN, A. A., BOZAN, M. B. (2022). Correlation between histopathological results and BI-RADS classification in breast masses. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 11, 2698–2701. https://ajindex.com/articles/446749

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Tabár L. Breast cancer screening: the evolving evidence. Oncology (Williston Park)2012;26:471-5, 479- 81, 485-6
  2. Bock K, Borisch B, Cawson J, et. al. Effect of populationbased screening on breast cancer mortality. Lancet 2011;378:1775-6
  3. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, et. al. Swedish twocounty trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260:658-63
  4. Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, et. al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 2011;117:714- 22
  5. McKinley AG. Hereditary breast cancer and linkage analysis to BRCA_. Br J Surg 1995;82:1086-8
  6. Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth AB. Positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system. J Am Coll Surg 1990;189:34-40
  7. Shapiro S, Venet W, Starx P. Periodic screening for breast cancer 1963-1986. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Pres 1988
  8. Levy L, Suissa M, Teman G, et al. BIRADS Ulrasonography. EJ of Radiology 2007;61:202-11
  9. Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth AB. Positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system. J Am Coll Surg 1990;189:34-40
  10. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, et al. BIRADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999;211:845- 50
  11. Bilgin MG, Sarı O, Balkan M, et al. Meme işaretleme yöntemiyle şüpheli lezyonların irdelenmesi. Meme Sağlığı Dergisi 2007;3:140-2
  12. Masroor I. Effectiveness of assigning BIRADS category 3 to breast lesion with respect to follow-up. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2008;18:209-12
  13. Smith SA, Saslow D, Sawyer D, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:141-69.