The correlation of the native mammography and histology of the breast cancer
Authors:
prim. MUDr. Vladimír Bella; MUDr. Ján Klačko; MUDr. Dušan Malatin; MUDr. Erika Zámečníková
Authors place of work:
Národný onkologický ústav, Bratislava, Slovensko
Published in the journal:
Prakt Gyn 2007; 11(1): 34-36
Summary
In the early of 21. century the examination with mammography is the most effective diagnostic method for early detection of breast cancer. In the literature, the values of sensitivity are various, in wide intervals. In our study in National Cancer Institute, in Bratislava, we have found out statistic correlation of results from mammography and histology of the breast cancer, up to 10mm, in 330 women. The sentitivity of mammography in breast cancer up to 10mm has been overall 79%, carcinoma in situ up to 10mm 60%, pT1aN0M0 81% and pT1aN1M0 87%. Results of mammography in breast cancer up to 10mm have been in 21% false negative. In conclusion, our study recommend to exert the complex diagnostic of breast cancer, not only mammography, but also clinical examination, ultrasonography and other diagnostic methods.
Key words:
carcinoma of breast up to 10mm, native mamography, opacity, microkalcification, sensitivity.
Zdroje
1. American Cancer Society: American Cancer Society guidelines for early detection of cancer 2005.
2. Banks E et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity in the Milion Women Study: cohort study. BMJ 2004; 329: 477.
3. Barton MB, Harris R, Fletcher SW. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? JAMA 1999; 282: 1270–1280.
4. Bella V. Diagnostika karcinómu prsníka. In: Bella V et al (eds). Karcinóm prsníka. Banská Bystrica: Advert 2005: 30–45.
5. Bobo JK, Lee NC, Thames SF. Findings from 752 081 clinical breast examinations reported to a National Screening Program from 1995 through 1998. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 971–976.
6. Burstein HJ. Breast cancer: Disease management guide. 2. ed. Montvale: Thomson PDR 2003.
7. Buseman S, Mouchawar J, Calonge N, Byers T. Mammography screening matters for young women with breast carcinoma. Cancer 2003; 97(2): 352–358.
8. Feig SA. Methods to identify benefit from mammographic screening of women aged 40–49 years. Radiology 1996; 22: 309–316.
9. Keith LG, Oleszczuk JJ, Laguens M. Are mammography and palpation sufficient for breast cancer screening? A dissenting opinion. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002; 11(1): 17–24.
10. Kerlikowske K, Schmidt-Bindman R, Ljung BM, Grady D. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Inter Med 2003; 139(4): 274–284.
11. Klačko J. Natívna mamografia. In: Bella V. Karcinóm prsníka. Banská Bystrica: Advert 2005: 159.
12. McDonald S, Saslow D, Alciati MH. Performance and reporting of clinical breast examination: a review of literature. Ca Cancer Clin 2004; 54: 345–361.
13. Meden H, Neues KP, Roben-Kämpken S, Kuhn W. A clinical, mammographic, sonographic and histologic evaluation of breast cancer. Int J Gyneacol Obstet 1995; 48: 193–199.
14. Morris A, Flowers CR, Morris KT et al. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of the triple test score to traditional methods for evaluation palpable breast masses. Med Care 2003; 41(8): 962–971.
15. Morris KT, Pommier RF, Morris A et al. Usefulness of the tripple test score for palpable breast masses. Arch Surg 2001; 136(9): 1008–1013.
16. Osuch JR, Reeves MJ, Pathak DR, Kinchelow T. Clinical results from early development of a clinical decision rule for palpable solid breast masses. Ann Surg 2003; 238(5): 728–737.
17. Parkin DM, Bray FI, Devesa SS. Cancer burden in the year 2000. The global picture. Eur J Cancer 2001; 107(2): 554–566.
18. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Estimates of the worldwide incidence of 25 major cancers in 1990. Int J Cancer 1999; 80: 827–841.
19. Pleško I, Obšitníková A, Bella V. Epidemiológia zhubných nádorov prsníka. In: Bella V et al (eds). Karcinóm prsníka. Banská Bystrica: Advert 2005: 30–45.
20. Saarenmaa I. The effect of age an density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mamography and ultrasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001; 67(2): 117–123.
21. Strnad P, Daneš J. Nemoci prsu pro gynekology. Praha: Grada 2001: 324.
22. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: Recommmendations and rationale. Am Fam Physician 2002; 65(12): 163–174.
Štítky
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Practical Gynecology
2007 Číslo 1
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Bronchial Asthma in Pregnancy
- Optimal management in patients undergoing caesarean section in spinal anaesthesia
- Rooming in
- Amniocenthesis: safe invazive method in prenatal diagnostics