CLINICAL SEMIOTICS AND SURGICAL PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS OF STAGE-I BREAST CANCER


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Screening tumors of breast are detected by instrumental methods of diagnosis, such as mammography (MG), ultrasonography (USG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) only; typically have a size to 2.0 cm (T1) and need support (MG or USG control) at biopsy for morphological study. In the present study the clinical symptoms were analyzed using a large clinical data (1,347 patients with stage-I breast cancer), the rate of screening tumors and the possibility of pre-surgical biopsy of these tumors. The proportion of screening cancer, identified by instrumental methods of diagnosis was only 12.8%, which means the insufficient level of screening programs for all age groups women. Screening methods had the maximum diagnostic value in microcarcinomas (tumors less than 5 mm) which had no clinical symptoms and almost non-palpable. Young patients (<40 years) found breast cancer themselves and went to oncologist (more than 90% of cases; patients 50 years older - in 78% cases, p <0,05). Surgical biopsy with USG or MG control has improved the effectiveness of a biopsy from 74.4% (without instrumental control) to 93%; core-biopsy of tumors has helped to determinate of morphological diagnosis more exactly and plan treatment algorithm in these patients.

About the authors

I. V Kolyadina

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education; N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center under the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

Email: irinakolyadina@yandex.ru
канд. мед. наук, ассистент каф. онкологии 123995, Moscow, Russian Federation; 115478, Moscow, Russian Federation

D. V Komov

N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center under the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

115478, Moscow, Russian Federation

I. V Poddubnaya

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education; N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center under the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

123995, Moscow, Russian Federation; 115478, Moscow, Russian Federation

T. Yu Danzanova

N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center under the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

115478, Moscow, Russian Federation

L. A Kostyakova

N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center under the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

115478, Moscow, Russian Federation

G. T Sinyukova

N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center under the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

115478, Moscow, Russian Federation

S. M Banov

Clinic of Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education

125284, Moscow, Russian Federation

References

  1. Giger M.L., Karssemeijer N., Schnabel J.A. Breast image analysis for risk assessment, detection, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2013; 15: 327—57
  2. Tria Tirona M. Breast cancer screening update. Am Fam Physician. 2013 15; 87 (4): 274—8.
  3. Andersson Y., Frisell J., Sylvan M., de Boniface J., Bergkvist L. Breast cancer survival in relation to the metastatic tumor burden in axillary lymph nodes. J. Clin Oncol. 2010 ; 28 (17): 2868—73.
  4. Gundersen S., Bøhler P., Hannisdal E., Høst H. Tumor size and histological grading of stage 1 breast cancer. Prognostic and therapeutic significance. Tidsskr Norske Laegeforen. 1996;116 (2): 222—5.
  5. Arenas M., Sabater S., Hernández V., Henríquez I., Ameijide A., Anglada L. et al. Cosmetic outcome of breast conservative treatment for early stage breast cancer. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2006; 8 (5): 334—8.
  6. Morrison L.J., Morrison R.S. Palliative care and pain management. Med. Clin. N. Am. 2006; 90 (5): 983—1004.
  7. Shao H., Li B., Zhang X., Xiong Z., Liu Y., Tang G. Comparison of the diagnostic efficiency for breast cancer in Chinese women using mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and different combinations of these imaging modalities. J. Xray Sci. Technol. 2013; 21 (2): 283—92.
  8. Gartlehner G., Thaler K., Chapman A., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., Berzaczy D., Van Noord M.G., Helbich T.H. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 4: CD009632.
  9. Smetherman D.H. Screening, imaging, and image-guided biopsy techniques for breast cancer. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2013; 93 (2): 309—27.
  10. van Breest Smallenburg V., Nederend J., Voogd A.C., Coebergh J.W., van Beek M., Jansen F.H., Louwman W.J., Duijm L.E. Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Br. J. Cancer. 2013; 109 (1): 242—8.

Copyright (c) 2013 Eco-Vector


 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies