Wos Açık Erişimli Yayınlar

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/10754

Browse

Filters

20212

Settings

search.filters.applied.f.publicationcategory: search.filters.publicationcategory.Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli DergiSubject: search.filters.subject.breast ultrasonography

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Practical Utility of Diagnostic Clinical Breast Examination in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
    (2021) Turan, Muberra; Sozen, Fisun; Eminsoy, Muzaffer G.; Sencelikel, Tugce; Kut, Altug; Yildirim, Sedat; Oksuz, Ergun; 0000-0002-5723-5965; 34646704; K-8238-2012
    Objectives We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of physician-performed diagnostic clinical breast examination (DCBE) for the diagnosis of breast cancer in clinical practice and to determine the rates of breast cancer diagnosed with DCBE compared to the results of breast ultrasonography (US), mammography (MG), and histopathology. Methods In the retrospective cohort study, the files of female patients diagnosed with breast cancer and admitted to the general surgery outpatient clinics of a university hospital over a 10-year period (2011-2021) were examined. Patients with complete DCBE findings in their files were identified and analyzed (n = 1,091). The examinations of the patients were performed by general surgery specialists with 5-22 years of experience and by radiologists with 4-15 years of experience. Results The mean age of breast cancer diagnosis of the patients was 55.1 +/- 13.5 years. While the sensitivity of IX:BE was found to be 88.9%, MG sensitivity was 89.8% and breast US sensitivity was 95.1%. Cancer was detected by MG, breast US, and DCBE in 47.9% (n = 523), by breast US and DCBE in 38.9% (n = 424), by MG and breast US in 5.6% (n = 61), by DCBE alone in 3.6% (n = 39), by MG and KBE in 2.4% (n = 26), and by breast US alone in 1.6% (n = 18). Early-stage breast cancer (p = 0.00) consisted of 73.2% (n = 383) of cancers detected with DCBE, breast US and MG, 74.6% (n = 316) of cancers detected with DCBE and breast US, 93.4% of cancers detected with breast US and MG (n = 57), 92.3% (n = 24) of cancers detected with DCBE and MG, 94.4% (n = 17) of cancers detected with breast US alone, and 69.2% of cancers detected with DCBE alone (n = 27). Conclusions CBE still maintains its importance in societies where screening participation and awareness of breast cancer are low. A breast cancer diagnosis is often done after a complaint of a palpable mass in the breast, and only then are more advanced-stage breast cancers are seen. CBE is among the important diagnostic methods preventing breast cancer from being overlooked, especially in places where health resources are limited.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The effect of the use of the Gail model on breast cancer diagnosis in bi-rads 4A cases
    (2021) Karakaya, Emre; Erken, Murathan; Turnaoglu, Hale; Sirinoglu, Tugce; Akdur, Aydincan; Kavasoglu, Lara; 0000-0002-0664-5147; 0000-0002-8726-3369; 0000-0002-3592-5092; 0000-0002-3592-5092; 35677495; AAJ-8219-2021; AAA-3068-2021; ABI-7217-2020; CAA-2756-2022
    Objective: The BI-RADS classification system and the Gail Model are the scoring systems that contribute to the diagnosis of breast cancer. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of Gail Model to the diagnosis of breast lesions that were radiologically categorized as BI-RADS 4A. Material and Methods: We retrospectively examined the medical records of 320 patients between January 2011 and December 2020 whose lesions had been categorized as BI-RADS 4A. Radiological parameters of breast lesions and clinical parameters according to the Gail Model were collected. The relationship between malignant BI-RADS 4A lesions and radiological and clinical parameters was evaluated. In addition, the effect of the Gail Model on diagnosis in malignant BI-RADS 4A lesions was evaluated. Results: Among radiological features, there were significant differences between lesion size, contour, microcalcification content, echogenicity, and presence of ectasia with respect to the pathological diagnosis (p< 0.05). No significant difference was found between the lesions' pathological diagnosis and the patients' Gail score (p> 0.05). An analysis of the features of the Gail model revealed that there was no significant difference between the age of menarche, age at first live birth, presence of a first-degree relative with breast cancer, and a history of breast biopsy and the pathological diagnosis (p> 0.05). Conclusion: As a conclusion Gail Model does not contribute to the diagnosis of BC, especially in patients with BI-RADS 4A lesions.