首页> 外文期刊>The breast journal >Histologic grading at breast core needle biopsy: comparison with results from the excised breast specimen.
【24h】

Histologic grading at breast core needle biopsy: comparison with results from the excised breast specimen.

机译:乳房核心针穿刺活检的组织学分级:与切除的乳房标本的结果进行比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation between histologic tumor grade obtained at breast core needle biopsy (CNB) with that obtained from the excised breast specimen. A total of 899 records from all patients with breast cancer from January 1999 to January 2003 were reviewed. Of these, 341 lesions had CNB for diagnosis and had pathology results prospectively graded for both the core and excised specimens. Patient age, lesion type and size, imaging method for biopsy, number of cores, core pathology, surgery performed, final diagnosis, nuclear grade, and combined grade were recorded. In 286 lesions (83.9%), nuclear grade was reported for both core and excised specimens. Of these, 219 (76.6%) were in agreement. Of the 67 that differed, 66 (98.5%) differed by one grade; 46 (68.7%) were upgraded. The groups did not differ in average tumor size, tumor pathology, or number of cores. In 288 lesions (84.5%), combined grade was reported for both core and excised specimens. Of these, 214 (74.3%)were in agreement. Of the 74 that differed, 71 (95.9%) differed by one grade and 50 (67.6%) were upgraded. Again, there were no significant differences in tumor size, type, or number of cores. Overall, nuclear grade and combined grade obtained at CNB each showed agreement with the corresponding excised specimen grading approximately 75% of the time. Grading obtained by CNB, if changed by pathologic evaluation of the excised tumor, is most commonly upgraded. Differences, when they occurred, could not be attributed to tumor size, type, or the number of cores obtained.
机译:这项研究的目的是评估在乳房核心穿刺活检(CNB)获得的组织学肿瘤分级与从切除的乳房样本获得的组织学肿瘤分级之间的相关性。回顾了1999年1月至2003年1月间所有乳腺癌患者的899条记录。其中,有341个病变具有可诊断的CNB,并且对核心样本和切除样本的病理结果进行了预期分级。记录患者年龄,病变类型和大小,活检影像学方法,核心数目,核心病理,手术,最终诊断,核分级和合并分级。在286个病灶(83.9%)中,核心和切除标本均报告了核级。其中,219(76.6%)点同意。在这67个差异中,有66个(98.5%)相差一级。升级46(68.7%)。这些组在平均肿瘤大小,肿瘤病理学或核心数目方面没有差异。在288个病灶(84.5%)中,核心和切除标本的综合评分均被报告。其中,有214位(74.3%)同意。在74个差异级别中,有71个(95.9%)差异一个级别,其中50个等级(67.6%)得到了升级。同样,肿瘤的大小,类型或核心数目没有显着差异。总体而言,CNB获得的核级和综合级分别与大约75%的时间的相应切除标本具有一致性。如果通过切除的肿瘤的病理评估改变了CNB获得的评分,则通常会提高评分。差异发生时,不能归因于肿瘤的大小,类型或获得的核心数量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号