Literature DB >> 18751983

Non-operative diagnosis--effect on repeat-operation rates in the UK breast screening programme.

M G Wallis1, S Cheung, O Kearins, G M Lawrence.   

Abstract

Non-operative diagnosis rates in the UK breast screening programme have improved dramatically from 48.8% in 1994/95 (only nine units achieved the then minimum standard of 70%) to 94% in 2005/06 (only seven units failed to achieve the target of 90%). Preoperative and operative history of all 120,550 women diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer in the UK between April 1994 and March 2006 was derived from different national databases. In 2005/06, 2,790 (17.8%) of the 15,688 women having surgery needed two or more operations. In 2001/02 (non-operative diagnosis rate 87%), the re-operation rate was 23.8% (2,377 of 9,969). Extrapolation backwards to 1994/95 (non-operative diagnosis rate 48.8%) suggests a re-operation rate of 62%. Analysis over the 4 years from April 2002 (n=34,198) demonstrates that 4,089 (12%) women with a correct non-operative diagnosis of invasive disease required additional surgery compared to 1,166 (48%) of women who were under-staged (diagnosed as non-invasive based on core biopsy, but actually suffering from invasive disease). Failure to achieve a non-operative diagnosis of invasive disease (n=1,542) or non-invasive disease (n=2,247) resulted in re-operation rates of 65 and 43% respectively. Given the impact of not having a diagnosis pre-operatively, or of under-staging invasive carcinoma, it seems timely to introduce more sophisticated standards.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18751983     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1157-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  16 in total

1.  Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. EUSOMA Working Party.

Authors:  N M Perry
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto; Ian Ellis; Daniela Ambrogetti
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Impact of core-needle breast biopsy on the surgical management of mammographic abnormalities.

Authors:  R R White; T J Halperin; J A Olson ; M S Soo; R C Bentley; H F Seigler
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Percutaneous biopsy and sentinel lymphadenectomy: minimally invasive diagnosis and treatment of nonpalpable breast cancer.

Authors:  L Liberman; H S Cody
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance.

Authors:  J Brett; J Austoker
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  2001-12

Review 6.  Modern concepts of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and its diagnosis through percutaneous biopsy.

Authors:  Ute Kettritz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Results from the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme 2000-05.

Authors:  R L Bennett; R G Blanks; J Patnick; S M Moss
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.136

8.  Excising the reexcision: stereotactic core-needle biopsy decreases need for reexcision of breast cancer.

Authors:  C S Kaufman; R Delbecq; L Jacobson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment.

Authors:  J Brett; J Austoker; G Ong
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1998-12

Review 10.  Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures.

Authors:  Matthew Wallis; Anne Tardivon; Anne Tarvidon; Thomas Helbich; Ingrid Schreer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.034

View more
  2 in total

1.  Randomized controlled trial of stereotactic 11-G vacuum-assisted core biopsy for the diagnosis and management of mammographic microcalcification.

Authors:  Sara M Bundred; Anthony J Maxwell; Julie Morris; Yit Y Lim; Md Janick Harake; Sigrid Whiteside; Nigel J Bundred
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Stereotactically guided breast biopsy: a review.

Authors:  Victoria Ames; Peter D Britton
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2011-01-20
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.