Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
You searched for:"Amanda Arantes Perez"
We found (3) results for your search.Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2013;35(4):164-170
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032013000400006
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement about the histopathological diagnosis of intraductal proliferative breast lesions between general pathologists and a specialist in breast pathology. METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional study of 209 lesions received in consultation at the Breast Pathology Laboratory of the School of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, from 2007 to 2011, comparing the original diagnosis and the review. We included only cases with a formal request for review and cases in which the original diagnosis or reviewer's diagnosis showed proliferative lesions, pure ductal carcinoma in situ, ductal carcinoma in situ associated with microinvasion or associated with invasive carcinoma. The kappa index and percent concordance were used in the statistical analyses. RESULTS: A moderate agreement was observed between the original histopathological diagnosis and the second opinion (kappa=0.5; percentual concordance=83%). After the review, the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed in 140/163 cases (86%) and the diagnosis of benign lesions was confirmed in 34/46 cases (74%). Regarding specific diagnosis, we observed moderate agreement between the original diagnosis and the reviewer's diagnosis (136/209 cases; kappa=0.5; percent concordance=65%). The highest disagreement was observed in cases of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (6/6 cases; 100%). Important discordance was observed in cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (16/30 cases; 53%) and ductal carcinoma in situ (25/75 cases; 33%). Regarding the histological grade of ductal carcinoma in situ, we observed good agreement between the original diagnosis and the review (29/39 cases; kappa=0.6, percent agreement=74%). CONCLUSION: Our data confirm that intraductal proliferative breast lesions, especially atypical ductal hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion show relevant discrepancies in the histopathological diagnoses, which may induce errors in therapeutic decisions.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2013;35(4):164-170
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032013000400006
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement about the histopathological diagnosis of intraductal proliferative breast lesions between general pathologists and a specialist in breast pathology. METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional study of 209 lesions received in consultation at the Breast Pathology Laboratory of the School of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, from 2007 to 2011, comparing the original diagnosis and the review. We included only cases with a formal request for review and cases in which the original diagnosis or reviewer's diagnosis showed proliferative lesions, pure ductal carcinoma in situ, ductal carcinoma in situ associated with microinvasion or associated with invasive carcinoma. The kappa index and percent concordance were used in the statistical analyses. RESULTS: A moderate agreement was observed between the original histopathological diagnosis and the second opinion (kappa=0.5; percentual concordance=83%). After the review, the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed in 140/163 cases (86%) and the diagnosis of benign lesions was confirmed in 34/46 cases (74%). Regarding specific diagnosis, we observed moderate agreement between the original diagnosis and the reviewer's diagnosis (136/209 cases; kappa=0.5; percent concordance=65%). The highest disagreement was observed in cases of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (6/6 cases; 100%). Important discordance was observed in cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (16/30 cases; 53%) and ductal carcinoma in situ (25/75 cases; 33%). Regarding the histological grade of ductal carcinoma in situ, we observed good agreement between the original diagnosis and the review (29/39 cases; kappa=0.6, percent agreement=74%). CONCLUSION: Our data confirm that intraductal proliferative breast lesions, especially atypical ductal hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion show relevant discrepancies in the histopathological diagnoses, which may induce errors in therapeutic decisions.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2008;30(12):602-608
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008001200003
PURPOSE: to evaluate the agreement between histopathologic diagnoses of breast lesions made by general pathologists and by a specialist in breast pathology. METHODS: a cohort retrospective study comparing histopathologic diagnoses of 329 cases of breast lesions received in consultation for a second opinion was carried out. The material received for consultation included slides (152 cases), paraffin blocks (59 cases) or slides and blocks (118 cases). Cases were reviewed and the original diagnoses and diagnoses from a specialist in breast pathology were compared. The main diagnoses, nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ, and the histopathologic grade of invasive mammary carcinomas were evaluated. The kappa index and percentual concordance were used in the statistical analyses. RESULTS: a moderate agreement was observed between the original histopathologic diagnoses and the second opinion (kappa index=0.48; percentual concordance=59.9%). The diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed in 185/225 cases (82.2%) and diagnosis of benign lesions was confirmed in 89/104 cases (85.6%). The highest agreement was observed in the diagnosis of invasive mammary carcinomas (81%) and the highest disagreement was observed among diagnoses of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (74%), lobular carcinoma in situ (70%), and atypical epithelial hyperplasias (61%). There was a moderate agreement in the nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ (kappa index=0.52; percentual concordance=68.8%), and good concordance in the histologic grade of invasive carcinomas (kappa index=0.61; percentual concordance=74.3). CONCLUSIONS: the results show higher concordance rate in the diagnosis of invasive carcinomas and lower concordance in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion and premalignant breast lesions, especially lobular neoplasia in situ, and atypical epithelial hyperplasias.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2008;30(12):602-608
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008001200003
PURPOSE: to evaluate the agreement between histopathologic diagnoses of breast lesions made by general pathologists and by a specialist in breast pathology. METHODS: a cohort retrospective study comparing histopathologic diagnoses of 329 cases of breast lesions received in consultation for a second opinion was carried out. The material received for consultation included slides (152 cases), paraffin blocks (59 cases) or slides and blocks (118 cases). Cases were reviewed and the original diagnoses and diagnoses from a specialist in breast pathology were compared. The main diagnoses, nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ, and the histopathologic grade of invasive mammary carcinomas were evaluated. The kappa index and percentual concordance were used in the statistical analyses. RESULTS: a moderate agreement was observed between the original histopathologic diagnoses and the second opinion (kappa index=0.48; percentual concordance=59.9%). The diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed in 185/225 cases (82.2%) and diagnosis of benign lesions was confirmed in 89/104 cases (85.6%). The highest agreement was observed in the diagnosis of invasive mammary carcinomas (81%) and the highest disagreement was observed among diagnoses of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (74%), lobular carcinoma in situ (70%), and atypical epithelial hyperplasias (61%). There was a moderate agreement in the nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ (kappa index=0.52; percentual concordance=68.8%), and good concordance in the histologic grade of invasive carcinomas (kappa index=0.61; percentual concordance=74.3). CONCLUSIONS: the results show higher concordance rate in the diagnosis of invasive carcinomas and lower concordance in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion and premalignant breast lesions, especially lobular neoplasia in situ, and atypical epithelial hyperplasias.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2006;28(12):721-727
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032006001200006
PURPOSE: to evaluate the clinical, radiological therapeutic and anatomo-pathological aspects in a series of patients with breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), attended in three public hospitals in Belo Horizonte (MG). METHODS: 179 cases of DCIS, that were selected from all the patients who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 1985 and 2000, were studied retrospectively. After reviewing all the tissue sections, it was possible to collect all the clinical data, mammogram and treatment information of 85 cases. RESULTS: most patients were not symptomatic and the diagnosis had been done by mammogram (68.2%), being the microcalcification the most common radiological alteration. There has been a progressive increase in the diagnosis of DCIS along the years, following the introduction of periodical mammographic screening. The initial histopathological diagnosis and the review agreed in 72.9% of cases. In three cases, the original diagnosis of DCIS was not confirmed, being classified as atypical hyperplasia. Mammogram microcalcifications were confirmed in the pathological analysis in 95.6% of cases. Half of the patients was treated with mastectomy. All lymph nodes from axillary dissection were negative for metastases. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is in agreement with the recent literature, which shows an increase in the diagnosis of DCIS since 1990. There has been a great interobserver variation since the initial pathological diagnosis, which tended to malignancy and the present review. There were a great number of radical treatments, such as mastectomy and axillary dissection, which would probably be replaced by conservative treatment and sentinel lymph node biopsy nowadays, according to recent knowledge.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2006;28(12):721-727
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032006001200006
PURPOSE: to evaluate the clinical, radiological therapeutic and anatomo-pathological aspects in a series of patients with breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), attended in three public hospitals in Belo Horizonte (MG). METHODS: 179 cases of DCIS, that were selected from all the patients who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 1985 and 2000, were studied retrospectively. After reviewing all the tissue sections, it was possible to collect all the clinical data, mammogram and treatment information of 85 cases. RESULTS: most patients were not symptomatic and the diagnosis had been done by mammogram (68.2%), being the microcalcification the most common radiological alteration. There has been a progressive increase in the diagnosis of DCIS along the years, following the introduction of periodical mammographic screening. The initial histopathological diagnosis and the review agreed in 72.9% of cases. In three cases, the original diagnosis of DCIS was not confirmed, being classified as atypical hyperplasia. Mammogram microcalcifications were confirmed in the pathological analysis in 95.6% of cases. Half of the patients was treated with mastectomy. All lymph nodes from axillary dissection were negative for metastases. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is in agreement with the recent literature, which shows an increase in the diagnosis of DCIS since 1990. There has been a great interobserver variation since the initial pathological diagnosis, which tended to malignancy and the present review. There were a great number of radical treatments, such as mastectomy and axillary dissection, which would probably be replaced by conservative treatment and sentinel lymph node biopsy nowadays, according to recent knowledge.
