34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Imaging-Assisted Large-Format Breast Pathology: Program Rationale and Development in a Nonprofit Health System in the United States

      review-article
      *
      International Journal of Breast Cancer
      Hindawi Publishing Corporation

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Modern breast imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging, provides an increasingly clear depiction of breast cancer extent, often with suboptimal pathologic confirmation. Pathologic findings guide management decisions, and small increments in reported tumor characteristics may rationalize significant changes in therapy and staging. Pathologic techniques to grossly examine resected breast tissue have changed little during this era of improved breast imaging and still rely primarily on the techniques of gross inspection and specimen palpation. Only limited imaging information is typically conveyed to pathologists, typically in the form of wire-localization images from breast-conserving procedures. Conventional techniques of specimen dissection and section submission destroy the three-dimensional integrity of the breast anatomy and tumor distribution. These traditional methods of breast specimen examination impose unnecessary limitations on correlation with imaging studies, measurement of cancer extent, multifocality, and margin distance. Improvements in pathologic diagnosis, reporting, and correlation of breast cancer characteristics can be achieved by integrating breast imagers into the specimen examination process and the use of large-format sections which preserve local anatomy. This paper describes the successful creation of a large-format pathology program to routinely serve all patients in a busy interdisciplinary breast center associated with a community-based nonprofit health system in the United States.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Twenty-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Total Mastectomy, Lumpectomy, and Lumpectomy plus Irradiation for the Treatment of Invasive Breast Cancer

          New England Journal of Medicine, 347(16), 1233-1241
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

            To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests. (c) RSNA, 2004.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening.

              The long term effect of mammographic service screening is not well established. We aimed to assess the long-term effect of mammographic screening on death from breast cancer, taking into account potential biases from self-selection, changes in breast cancer incidence, and classification of cause of death. We compared deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before screening was introduced (1958-77) with those from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years after the introduction of screening (1978-97) in two Swedish counties, in 210000 women aged 20-69 years. We also compared deaths from all cancers and from all causes in patients diagnosed with breast cancer in the 20 years before and after screening was introduced. In the analysis, data were stratified into age-groups invited for screening (40-69 years) and not invited (20-39 years), and by whether or not the women had actually received screening. We also analysed mortality for the 40-49-year age-group separately. The unadjusted risk of death from breast cancer dropped significantly in the second screening period compared with the first in women aged 40-69 years (relative risk [RR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.7-0.85]; p<0.0001). No such decline was seen in 20-39 year olds. After adjustment for age, self-selection bias, and changes in breast-cancer incidence in the 40-69 years age-group, breast-cancer mortality was reduced in women who were screened (0.56; 0.49-0.64 p<0.0001), in those who were not screened (0.84 [0.71-0.99]; p=0.03), and in screened and unscreened women combined (0.59 [0.53-0.66]; p<0.0001). After adjustment for age, self-selection bias, and changes in incidence in the 40-49-year age-group, deaths from breast cancer fell significantly in those who were screened (0.52 [0.4-0.67]; p<0.0001); and in all women, screened and unscreened combined (0.55 [0.44-0.7] p<0.0001) but not in unscreened women (p=0.2). In both 40-69-year and 40-49-year age-groups, reductions in deaths from all cancers and from all-causes in women with breast cancer were consistent with these results. Taking account of potential biases, changes in clinical practice and changes in the incidence of breast cancer, mammography screening is contributing to substantial reductions in breast cancer mortality in these two Swedish counties.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Breast Cancer
                Int J Breast Cancer
                IJBC
                International Journal of Breast Cancer
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2090-3170
                2090-3189
                2012
                17 December 2012
                : 2012
                : 171792
                Affiliations
                Virginia Biomedical Laboratories, LLC, P.O. Box 510, Wirtz, VA 24184, USA
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Tibor Tot

                Article
                10.1155/2012/171792
                3534362
                23316372
                09e50efc-df17-4441-a19e-d067df9fa5b2
                Copyright © 2012 F. Lee Tucker.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 13 July 2012
                : 10 October 2012
                Categories
                Review Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content19

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors821