Factors that impact the upgrading of atypical ductal hyperplasia

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorGumus, Hatice
dc.contributor.authorMills, Philippa
dc.contributor.authorGumus, Metehan
dc.contributor.authorFish, David
dc.contributor.authorJones, Sue
dc.contributor.authorJones, Peter
dc.contributor.authorDevalia, Haresh
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:24:23Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:24:23Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that may have an impact on upgrading atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) lesions to malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between February 1999 and December 2010, the records of 150 ADH lesions that had been biopsied were retrospectively reviewed. The biopsy types included 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (SVAB) (n=102) and ultrasonography (US)-guided 14-gauge automated biopsy (n=48). The patients were divided into two groups: those who had cancer in the final pathology and those who did not. Variables associated with underestimation of ADH lesions were compared between the groups. RESULTS The underestimation rates according to the biopsy types were 41.7% (20/48) for the US-guided 14-gauge automated biopsy and 20.6% (21/102) for the 11-gauge SVAB (P = 0.007). The rate of underestimation was significantly higher in lesions greater than 7 mm than it was in smaller lesions, with both US-guided 14-gauge automated biopsy and 11-gauge SVAB (P = 0.024 and P = 0.042, respectively). The rate of underestimation was significantly higher with the 11-gauge SVAB (P = 0.025) in lesions that were suspicious (R4) and highly suggestive of malignancy (R5) than in those that were probably benign (R3). CONCLUSION The underestimation rate in ADH lesions was significantly higher with US-guided 14-gauge automated biopsy compared to the 11-gauge SVAB. The underestimation rate was also significantly higher in lesions greater than 7 mm regardless of the biopsy type, and in lesions biopsied using SVAB that were regarded as suspicious (R4) or highly suggestive of malignancy (R5) on imaging.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.5838-12.2
dc.identifier.endpage96en_US
dc.identifier.issn1305-3825
dc.identifier.issn1305-3612
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23019055
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84874607429
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage91en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.5838-12.2
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/19647
dc.identifier.volume19en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000315753000002
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAvesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[No Keyword]en_US
dc.titleFactors that impact the upgrading of atypical ductal hyperplasiaen_US
dc.titleFactors that impact the upgrading of atypical ductal hyperplasia
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu