European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2006
Radiological review of specimen radiographs after breast localisation biopsy is not always necessary.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Coombs N J, Vassallo P P, Parker A J, Yiangou C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The use of specimen radiographs to confirm the presence of the radiological abnormality in a breast specimen after localisation biopsy is standard practice. This study aims to show that a trained surgeon may assess breast specimen radiographs with similar efficacy as a radiologist.
METHODS: This retrospective study assessed all patients who had localisation breast surgery using wire or ultrasound (US) techniques between January 2002 and March 2003. Histopathological records and mammographic details were recorded from the hospital notes. A consultant radiologist and surgeon reviewed the specimen radiographs, identifying mammographic abnormalities and assessing margins.
RESULTS: Localisation surgery was performed on 101 patients with US used to localize 68. The median specimen weight was 64g. A malignant diagnosis was made in 86 patients. In 23, the histological resection margins were considered to be close or involved by tumour and re-excision was performed in eight patients. Sixty-one specimen radiographs were reviewed. The radiologist identified every mammographic abnormality, and the surgeon identified the lesion in 58. The positive predictive value of specimen radiographs to identify histologically involved margins was 75 and 74% by the radiologist and the surgeon, respectively. Where good radiograph margins were reported in 40 and 35 patients by the radiologist and surgeon, respectively, 11 and 7 had histologically involved margins.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a suitably trained or experienced surgeon can assess specimen radiographs effectively without the need for intraoperative radiological input although complete histological resection is not guaranteed despite specimen radiographs demonstrating clear margins.
METHODS: This retrospective study assessed all patients who had localisation breast surgery using wire or ultrasound (US) techniques between January 2002 and March 2003. Histopathological records and mammographic details were recorded from the hospital notes. A consultant radiologist and surgeon reviewed the specimen radiographs, identifying mammographic abnormalities and assessing margins.
RESULTS: Localisation surgery was performed on 101 patients with US used to localize 68. The median specimen weight was 64g. A malignant diagnosis was made in 86 patients. In 23, the histological resection margins were considered to be close or involved by tumour and re-excision was performed in eight patients. Sixty-one specimen radiographs were reviewed. The radiologist identified every mammographic abnormality, and the surgeon identified the lesion in 58. The positive predictive value of specimen radiographs to identify histologically involved margins was 75 and 74% by the radiologist and the surgeon, respectively. Where good radiograph margins were reported in 40 and 35 patients by the radiologist and surgeon, respectively, 11 and 7 had histologically involved margins.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a suitably trained or experienced surgeon can assess specimen radiographs effectively without the need for intraoperative radiological input although complete histological resection is not guaranteed despite specimen radiographs demonstrating clear margins.