Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2014
Is routine pathological evaluation of tissue from gynecomastia necessary? A 15-year retrospective pathological and literature review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Senger Jenna-Lynn, Chandran Geethan, Kanthan Rani
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To reconsider the routine plastic surgical practice of requesting histopathological evaluation of tissue from gynecomastia.
METHOD: The present study was a retrospective histopathological review (15-year period [1996 to 2012]) involving gynecomastia tissue samples received at the pathology laboratory in the Saskatoon Health Region (Saskatchewan). The Laboratory Information System (LIS) identified all specimens using the key search words "gynecomastia", "gynaecomastia", "gynecomazia" and "gynaecomazia". A literature review to identify all cases of incidentally discovered malignancies in gynecomastia tissue specimens over a 15-year period (1996 to present) was undertaken.
RESULTS: The 15-year LIS search detected a total of 452 patients that included two cases of pseudogynecomastia (0.4%). Patients' age ranged from five to 92 years and 43% of the cases were bilateral (28% left sided, 29% right sided). The weight of the specimens received ranged from 0.2 g to 1147.2 g. All cases showed no significant histopathological concerns. The number of tissue blocks sampled ranged from one to 42, averaging four blocks/case (approximately $105/case), resulting in a cost of approximately $3,200/year, with a 15-year expenditure of approximately $48,000. The literature review identified a total of 15 incidental findings: ductal carcinoma in situ (12 cases), atypical ductal hyperplasia (two cases) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (one case).
CONCLUSIONS: In the context of evidence-based literature, and because no significant pathological findings were detected in this particular cohort of 452 cases with 2178 slides, the authors believe it is time to re-evaluate whether routine histopathological examination of tissue from gynecomastia remains necessary. The current climate of health care budget fiscal restraints warrants reassessment of the current policies and practices of sending tissue samples of gynecomastia incurring negative productivity costs on routine histopathological examination.
METHOD: The present study was a retrospective histopathological review (15-year period [1996 to 2012]) involving gynecomastia tissue samples received at the pathology laboratory in the Saskatoon Health Region (Saskatchewan). The Laboratory Information System (LIS) identified all specimens using the key search words "gynecomastia", "gynaecomastia", "gynecomazia" and "gynaecomazia". A literature review to identify all cases of incidentally discovered malignancies in gynecomastia tissue specimens over a 15-year period (1996 to present) was undertaken.
RESULTS: The 15-year LIS search detected a total of 452 patients that included two cases of pseudogynecomastia (0.4%). Patients' age ranged from five to 92 years and 43% of the cases were bilateral (28% left sided, 29% right sided). The weight of the specimens received ranged from 0.2 g to 1147.2 g. All cases showed no significant histopathological concerns. The number of tissue blocks sampled ranged from one to 42, averaging four blocks/case (approximately $105/case), resulting in a cost of approximately $3,200/year, with a 15-year expenditure of approximately $48,000. The literature review identified a total of 15 incidental findings: ductal carcinoma in situ (12 cases), atypical ductal hyperplasia (two cases) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (one case).
CONCLUSIONS: In the context of evidence-based literature, and because no significant pathological findings were detected in this particular cohort of 452 cases with 2178 slides, the authors believe it is time to re-evaluate whether routine histopathological examination of tissue from gynecomastia remains necessary. The current climate of health care budget fiscal restraints warrants reassessment of the current policies and practices of sending tissue samples of gynecomastia incurring negative productivity costs on routine histopathological examination.