K-J Winzer1, S Unger1, U Bick2, F Dieckmann3, E Fallenberg4. 1. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Charité Campus Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin. 2. Institute of Radiology, Charité Campus Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin. 3. Institut für Radiologische Diagnostik, St. Joseph-Stift Bremen, Bremen. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin.
Abstract
Objective: If a focus of suspicion is classified as being B 3-5 by a punch biopsy as part of a mammography screening, a recommendation for further action to be taken will be given in the preoperative conference of the screening unit. As part of this investigation, these treatment recommendations were compared with the final therapeutic approach taken at a certified breast centre. Furthermore, it was investigated whether and which additional examinations were performed on patients, depending on compliance with the recommended treatment. Material and Method: The data from 272 breast cancer patients from the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 was analysed. The patients took part in the screening programmes of four screening units in the German mammography screening programme, in one federal state. In addition, the data from each patient from one screening unit was analysed in two further federal states. Results: In total, the most recently conducted intervention deviated from the treatment recommendation from the preoperative conference in the screening unit in 77 out of 272 patients (28.3 %). Of these, there were 50 recommendations for open biopsy which ultimately resulted in breast-conserving surgery, which is not to be evaluated as an error, as the bioptic result was supplemented by the open biopsy. Additional examinations were performed in patients with deviating treatment recommendation in 39 cases (50.6 %) and in patients without deviating treatment recommendation in 66 cases (34.0 %). The additional examinations carried out included additional punch biopsies (most frequent) and MRI scans, but also additional ultrasounds or a mammography. Conclusions: Additional examinations lead to a change in treatment in a higher percentage of patients in comparison with the initial screening including assessment. An exact reexamination of the findings obtained in the screening is therefore preoperatively necessary in order to guarantee optimum treatment.
Objective: If a focus of suspicion is classified as being B 3-5 by a punch biopsy as part of a mammography screening, a recommendation for further action to be taken will be given in the preoperative conference of the screening unit. As part of this investigation, these treatment recommendations were compared with the final therapeutic approach taken at a certified breast centre. Furthermore, it was investigated whether and which additional examinations were performed on patients, depending on compliance with the recommended treatment. Material and Method: The data from 272 breast cancerpatients from the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 was analysed. The patients took part in the screening programmes of four screening units in the German mammography screening programme, in one federal state. In addition, the data from each patient from one screening unit was analysed in two further federal states. Results: In total, the most recently conducted intervention deviated from the treatment recommendation from the preoperative conference in the screening unit in 77 out of 272 patients (28.3 %). Of these, there were 50 recommendations for open biopsy which ultimately resulted in breast-conserving surgery, which is not to be evaluated as an error, as the bioptic result was supplemented by the open biopsy. Additional examinations were performed in patients with deviating treatment recommendation in 39 cases (50.6 %) and in patients without deviating treatment recommendation in 66 cases (34.0 %). The additional examinations carried out included additional punch biopsies (most frequent) and MRI scans, but also additional ultrasounds or a mammography. Conclusions: Additional examinations lead to a change in treatment in a higher percentage of patients in comparison with the initial screening including assessment. An exact reexamination of the findings obtained in the screening is therefore preoperatively necessary in order to guarantee optimum treatment.
Authors: R J Jackman; F Burbank; S H Parker; W P Evans; M C Lechner; T R Richardson; A A Smid; H B Borofsky; C H Lee; H M Goldstein; K J Schilling; A B Wray; R F Brem; T H Helbich; D E Lehrer; S J Adler Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter A Fasching; Katharina Heusinger; Christian R Loehberg; Evelyn Wenkel; Michael P Lux; Michael Schrauder; Thomas Koscheck; Werner Bautz; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Matthias W Beckmann; Mayada R Bani Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-10-09 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: S Weigel; T Decker; E Korsching; C Biesheuvel; A Wöstmann; W Böcker; D Hungermann; K Roterberg; J Tio; W Heindel Journal: Rofo Date: 2011-04-19
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272