Background: Women with breast imaging often seek second opinions at tertiary care centers. Our study measures the frequency of discrepancy between initial and second opinion breast imaging recommendations and evaluates the impact on patient management.
Materials And Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 504 consecutive patients with second opinion breast radiology interpretations performed by 6 sub-specialized breast radiologists at a dedicated cancer center from January 1, 2014 through September 1, 2014. Outside imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize discrepancies. Interpretations were considered discrepant in cases with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category changes, recommendation for additional imaging, or identification of previously undiagnosed additional extent of disease greater than 5 cm. The frequencies of discrepancy, alterations in surgical management, and incremental cancer detection were measured. Statistical analysis of associated factors was performed with the Fisher exact test, with a P-value < .05 considered significant.
Results: Second opinion evaluation discrepancies were seen in 287 (57%) patients and resulted in percutaneous image-guided biopsies in 92 (18%). Forty-five additional sites of cancer were biopsy-detected in 41 (8%) patients, including 20 breast malignancies and 25 axillary metastases. Another 9 biopsies yielded high-risk pathology. Second opinion interpretations altered surgical management in 66 (13%) patients. Factors associated with increased discrepancy frequency were cancer diagnosis at presentation (P = .004), dense breasts (P = .005), and the absence of prior studies for comparison (P = .007).
Conclusion: Although additional imaging and resources are required, second opinion radiology review by subspecialized breast radiologists increases cancer detection and results in clinically relevant changes in patient management.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2018.03.009 | DOI Listing |
Expert Opin Drug Deliv
January 2025
CICS-UBI - Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Introduction: Although there are numerous options for epilepsy treatment, its effective control continues unsatisfactory. Thus, search for alternative therapeutic options to improve the efficacy/safety binomial of drugs becomes very attractive to investigate. In this context, intranasal administration of antiseizure drugs formulated on state-of-the-art nanosystems can be a promising strategy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPain Pract
February 2025
Department of Anesthesiology, Mount Sinai West Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Objectives: Chronic pain is a debilitating, multifactorial condition. The purpose of this study was to examine patient characteristics of those who did not show up for their scheduled first pain medicine appointment in order to identify factors that may improve access to care.
Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 810 patients from a single-center academic pain management clinic between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak
January 2025
Department of Psychiatry, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Objective: To determine referral patterns for psychiatric consultations among COVID-19 patients encompassing both the in-patient and Emergency Department of a multidisciplinary hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.
Study Design: A retrospective chart review. Place and Duration of the Study: The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan, from March 2020 to December 2021.
Colorectal Dis
January 2025
Department of Surgery, NHS Lanarkshire, Lanarkshire, UK.
Aim: The aim of this work was to quantify post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland using World Endoscopy Association guidelines, compare incidence between health boards and referral streams and explore comparisons in results with published data from other healthcare systems.
Method: This is a population-based cohort study using NHS Scotland data between 2012 and 2018. All people undergoing colonoscopy between 2012 and 2018 and subsequently diagnosed as having bowel cancer up to 3 years after their investigation were included.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!