American journal of surgery · 2005
Surgeon and community factors affecting breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hutchinson Julie R, Chagpar Anees B, Scoggins Charles R, Martin Robert C G, Carlson David J, Laidley Alison L, El-Eid Souzan E, McGlothin Terre Q, Noyes Robert D, Ley Phillip B, Tuttle Todd M, McMasters Kelly M, University of Louisville Breast Sentinel Lymph Node Study
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether the results of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy are related to practice and community factors.
METHODS: This prospective study included more than 300 surgeons from a variety of practice environments. Most surgeons had minimal experience with SLN biopsy prior to this study. Patients underwent attempted SLN biopsy, followed by completion axillary dissection. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess factors related to the SLN identification rate and the false negative rate.
RESULTS: A total of 4131 patients were enrolled. SLN identification rate was 93%; the false negative (FN) rate was 7.9%. The only factor that was significantly associated with improved SLN identification rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12 to 2.36, P = .0126) and FN rate (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.79, P = .0073) was surgeon experience (>20 SLN cases).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon experience is the major factor that contributes to improved SLN biopsy results. SLN biopsy can be performed equally well by community and academic surgeons.
METHODS: This prospective study included more than 300 surgeons from a variety of practice environments. Most surgeons had minimal experience with SLN biopsy prior to this study. Patients underwent attempted SLN biopsy, followed by completion axillary dissection. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess factors related to the SLN identification rate and the false negative rate.
RESULTS: A total of 4131 patients were enrolled. SLN identification rate was 93%; the false negative (FN) rate was 7.9%. The only factor that was significantly associated with improved SLN identification rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12 to 2.36, P = .0126) and FN rate (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.79, P = .0073) was surgeon experience (>20 SLN cases).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon experience is the major factor that contributes to improved SLN biopsy results. SLN biopsy can be performed equally well by community and academic surgeons.