Literature DB >> 19057734

Geographic variation and physician specialization in the use of percutaneous biopsy for breast cancer diagnosis.

Claire M B Holloway1, Refik Saskin, Lawrence Paszat.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preoperative diagnosis of breast cancer is a standard of care. We conducted a population-based study to determine the factors associated with the use of percutaneous needle biopsy to diagnose breast cancer in Ontario.
METHODS: We identified a total of 3644 women who underwent breast tissue sampling (percutaneous needle biopsy or surgical excision) that yielded a diagnosis of cancer between Apr. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2002, and for whom we were able to obtain complete data. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to examine the association between a number of variables and the use of percutaneous biopsy or surgery for diagnosis and the performance of biopsy with or without image guidance. The variables were age, local health integration network (LHIN), income quintile, urban or rural residence, access to a primary care provider, prior mammogram, prior regular screening mammography, screen-initiated biopsy, and surgeon and radiologist specialization in breast disease.
RESULTS: A total of 2374 women (65%) underwent percutaneous biopsy to diagnose breast cancer. The use of percutaneous biopsy varied from 22% to 81% among LHINs. On multivariate analysis, no patient variables were associated with the use of percutaneous biopsy for diagnosis. Only the LHIN and surgeon and radiologist specialization were predictive of whether a woman received a percutaneous biopsy. These 2 variables, along with income quintile and screen-initiated biopsy, were associated with the use of image-guided biopsy as the method of choice.
CONCLUSION: Geographic variation in the use of percutaneous biopsy, particularly image-guided biopsy, for the diagnosis of breast cancer exists across Ontario. The frequency of such biopsies may be a useful quality indicator. Strategies to improve uptake of organized evidence-based care may increase the use of percutaneous biopsy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19057734      PMCID: PMC2592581     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Surg        ISSN: 0008-428X            Impact factor:   2.089


  24 in total

1.  Waiting for a diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram. SMPBC diagnostic process workgroup. Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia.

Authors:  I A Olivotto; L Kan; S King
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr

2.  Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications.

Authors:  Mary Scott Soo; Jay A Baker; Eric L Rosen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Prospective comparison of stereotactic core biopsy and surgical excision as diagnostic procedures for breast cancer patients.

Authors:  M Morrow; L Venta; T Stinson; C Bennett
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Geographic variation in breast-conserving surgery in Kentucky's Medicare population.

Authors:  Joyce Beaulieu; Jennifer Galland; Steven Fleming; Kun Chen; Xuejun Peng
Journal:  J Ky Med Assoc       Date:  2002-03

5.  Mammographic findings after stereotaxic biopsy of the breast performed with large-core needles.

Authors:  M D Kaye; C A Vicinanza-Adami; M L Sullivan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Occult breast lesions and aspiration biopsy: a new challenge.

Authors:  S Masood
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 1.582

7.  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

8.  Reducing the cost of diagnosis of breast carcinoma: impact of ultrasound and imaging-guided biopsies on a clinical breast practice.

Authors:  E Rubin; S T Mennemeyer; R A Desmond; M M Urist; J Waterbor; M J Heslin; W K Bernreuter; P J Dempsey; N S Pile; W H Rodgers
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Breast cancer care: changing community standards.

Authors:  William M Butler; Joan E Cunningham; Douglas Bull; Tommy Cupples; Paul Guerry; James C Reynolds; C Alden Sweatman
Journal:  J Healthc Qual       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.095

10.  Fine-needle aspiration cytology vs. core biopsy in the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Aasmund Berner; Ben Davidson; Eva Sigstad; Bjørn Risberg
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.582

View more
  4 in total

1.  Psychological distress, optimism and general health in breast cancer survivors: a data linkage study using the Scottish Health Survey.

Authors:  Janni Leung; Iain Atherton; Richard G Kyle; Gill Hubbard; Deirdre McLaughlin
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Underutilization of Needle Biopsy Before Breast Surgery: A Measure of Low-Value Care.

Authors:  Richard C Gilmore; Peiqi Wang; Katerina Kaczmarski; Susan Hutfless; David M Euhus; Lisa K Jacobs; Mehran Habibi; Julie Lange; Melissa Camp; Martin A Makary
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Core needle biopsy of breast cancer tumors increases distant metastases in a mouse model.

Authors:  Edward Gitau Mathenge; Cheryl Ann Dean; Derek Clements; Ahmad Vaghar-Kashani; Steffany Photopoulos; Krysta Mila Coyle; Michael Giacomantonio; Benjamin Malueth; Anna Nunokawa; Julie Jordan; John D Lewis; Shashi Ashok Gujar; Paola Marcato; Patrick W K Lee; Carman Anthony Giacomantonio
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 5.715

4.  Gradual adoption of needle biopsy for breast lesions in a rural state.

Authors:  Serena Murphy; Yi-Chuan Yu; Colleen Kerrigan; Brian Sprague; Michelle Sowden
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 4.452

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.