Display options
Cite
İflazoğlu N, Üreyen O, Atahan MK, et al. A Retrospective Comparative Study of Image-Guided Excisional Biopsy in High-Risk Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Predictive Factors for Malignancy. J Breast Health. 2015;11(3):132-137doi: 10.5152/tjbh.2015.2628.
İflazoğlu, N., Üreyen, O., Atahan, M. K., Meral, U. M., Sezgin, G., & Tarcan, E. (2015). A Retrospective Comparative Study of Image-Guided Excisional Biopsy in High-Risk Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Predictive Factors for Malignancy. The journal of breast health, 11(3), 132-137. https://doi.org/10.5152/tjbh.2015.2628
İflazoğlu, Nidal, et al. "A Retrospective Comparative Study of Image-Guided Excisional Biopsy in High-Risk Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Predictive Factors for Malignancy." The journal of breast health vol. 11,3 (2015): 132-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.5152/tjbh.2015.2628
İflazoğlu N, Üreyen O, Atahan MK, Meral UM, Sezgin G, Tarcan E. A Retrospective Comparative Study of Image-Guided Excisional Biopsy in High-Risk Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Predictive Factors for Malignancy. J Breast Health. 2015 Jul 01;11(3):132-137. doi: 10.5152/tjbh.2015.2628. eCollection 2015 Jul. PMID: 28331708; PMCID: PMC5351452.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Breast Health. 2015 Jul 01;11(3):132-137. doi: 10.5152/tjbh.2015.2628. eCollection 2015 Jul.

A Retrospective Comparative Study of Image-Guided Excisional Biopsy in High-Risk Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Predictive Factors for Malignancy.

The journal of breast health

Nidal İflazoğlu, Orhan Üreyen, Murat Kemal Atahan, Ulvi Mehmet Meral, Gülten Sezgin, Ercüment Tarcan

Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, ?zmir Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, ?zmir, Turkey.
  2. Department of General Surgery, Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, ?zmir, Turkey.
  3. Department of General Surgery, ?zmir Military Hospital, ?zmir, Turkey.
  4. Department of Radiology, ?zmir Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, ?zmir, Turkey.

PMID: 28331708 PMCID: PMC5351452 DOI: 10.5152/tjbh.2015.2628

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The use of mammography (MM) in breast cancer screening programs has been increasing in recent years. Thus, increasing the number of detected nonpalpable breast cancer patients, through early diagnosis and treatment also increased survival rates. In our study, we wanted to share the factors about imaging-guided exicional biopsies for non-palpable breast lesions in postoperative proven breast carcinoma patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The surgical data were reviewed for 83 patients with non-palpabl high-risk breast lesions undergoing imaging-guided surgery in our department between January, 2006 and May, 2011. Histopathologic results and age, ultrasound(US) results, MM image results, BI-RADS categorization, localization of lesion(quadrant) were assessed and factors for predicting malignity were detected.

RESULTS: Median age was 52 (age range 32-80 years). 29 (34,9%) of patients were malign in histopathologic results. In four patient, re-excision performed because of positive surgical margins. Axillary examination results were normal in 24 (82,7%) of malignant patients. In MM examination; microcalcifications and nodular opasity were diagnosed in 74,6% of patients before surgery. There were no differance about malignity in these groups after surgery (p:0,428). 59% and 32,7% of patients were BI-RADS 4 and 3, respectively. Postoperative diagnosed malignancies in BI-RADS 4 group were significantly higher than BI-RADS 3 group (p:<0,001).

CONCLUSION: In our study; we concluded that, preoperative BI-RADS categorization (US and MM) is correlated with histopathologic findings after surgery and imaging-guided breast surgery is effective for diagnosis of early-stage breast carcinoma.

Keywords: Non-palpabl; breast; localization

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

References

  1. Int J Womens Health. 2012;4:445-9 - PubMed
  2. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986 Apr;146(4):661-3 - PubMed
  3. J Surg Oncol. 2015 Feb;111(2):178-84 - PubMed
  4. Curr Opin Oncol. 1996 Nov;8(6):455-61 - PubMed
  5. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jun;74(3):525-8 - PubMed
  6. Int J Womens Health. 2010 Aug 09;2:77-82 - PubMed
  7. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002 May;40(3):409-30, v - PubMed
  8. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Jul-Aug;59(4):225-49 - PubMed
  9. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Mar-Apr;55(2):74-108 - PubMed
  10. Radiology. 1988 Jun;167(3):659-65 - PubMed
  11. Oncologist. 2010;15(12 ):1248-52 - PubMed
  12. East Afr Med J. 2000 Oct;77(10):539-43 - PubMed
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992 Mar;158(3):521-6 - PubMed
  14. Eur J Radiol. 2007 Feb;61(2):202-11 - PubMed
  15. JAMA. 2008 May 14;299(18):2151-63 - PubMed
  16. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983 Apr;140(4):807-11 - PubMed
  17. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982 Mar;138(3):586-7 - PubMed
  18. Br J Surg. 1999 Apr;86(4):522-5 - PubMed
  19. Radiology. 1985 Nov;157(2):537-8 - PubMed
  20. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2009 Sep;32(5):1087-90 - PubMed
  21. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001 Oct;8(9):711-5 - PubMed
  22. Cancer. 2003 May 15;97(10):2387-96 - PubMed
  23. Arch Surg. 1988 Jun;123(6):775-9 - PubMed
  24. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jan;41(1):106-12 - PubMed
  25. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005 Sep;93(1):85-9 - PubMed
  26. Breast. 2002 Feb;11(1):13-22 - PubMed
  27. Radiology. 1984 Feb;150(2):335-7 - PubMed

Publication Types