Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
You searched for:"Marco Antonio Rodrigues Freire Matias"
We found (3) results for your search.Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27(1):1-6
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000100002
PURPOSE: to perform a critical evaluation of the histopathological diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast, through the analysis of interobserver variation related to diagnosis, architectural pattern, nuclear grade, and histological grade. METHODS: eighty-five cases with an initial diagnosis of DCIS were reviewed by the same pathologist, specialist in breast pathology, who selected 15 cases for interobserver analysis. The analysis was carried out by five pathologists and an international expert in breast pathology, who received the same slides and a protocol for classifying the lesions as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), DCIS, or ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCIS-MIC). If the diagnosis was DCIS, the pathologists should classify it according to the dominant architectural pattern, nuclear grade, and histological grade. The results were analyzed using percent concordance and the kappa test. RESULTS: there was a great interobserver diagnostic variation. In one case we had all diagnoses, from ADH, DCIS to DCIS-MIC. The kappa test for the comparison among the five observers' and the expert's diagnoses showed minimum interobservers' concordance (<0.40). Regarding DCIS classification related to the dominant architectural pattern and the histological grade, the kappa test values were considered poor among the pathologists. The best results were obtained for the nuclear grading, with a kappa index up to 0.80, considered as good concordance. CONCLUSION: the low index of interobserver concordance in diagnosis and classification of DCIS of the breast indicates the difficulty in using the most common diagnostic criteria of the literature and the need for specific training of non-specialist pathologists in breast pathology for the diagnosis of these lesions.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27(1):1-6
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000100002
PURPOSE: to perform a critical evaluation of the histopathological diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast, through the analysis of interobserver variation related to diagnosis, architectural pattern, nuclear grade, and histological grade. METHODS: eighty-five cases with an initial diagnosis of DCIS were reviewed by the same pathologist, specialist in breast pathology, who selected 15 cases for interobserver analysis. The analysis was carried out by five pathologists and an international expert in breast pathology, who received the same slides and a protocol for classifying the lesions as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), DCIS, or ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCIS-MIC). If the diagnosis was DCIS, the pathologists should classify it according to the dominant architectural pattern, nuclear grade, and histological grade. The results were analyzed using percent concordance and the kappa test. RESULTS: there was a great interobserver diagnostic variation. In one case we had all diagnoses, from ADH, DCIS to DCIS-MIC. The kappa test for the comparison among the five observers' and the expert's diagnoses showed minimum interobservers' concordance (<0.40). Regarding DCIS classification related to the dominant architectural pattern and the histological grade, the kappa test values were considered poor among the pathologists. The best results were obtained for the nuclear grading, with a kappa index up to 0.80, considered as good concordance. CONCLUSION: the low index of interobserver concordance in diagnosis and classification of DCIS of the breast indicates the difficulty in using the most common diagnostic criteria of the literature and the need for specific training of non-specialist pathologists in breast pathology for the diagnosis of these lesions.
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.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2008;30(2):75-79
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008000200005
PURPOSE: the aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of mammography in the diagnosis of suspicious breast microcalcifications, using BI-RADS TM and Le Gal's classifications. METHODS: one hundred and thirty cases were selected with mammograms contain only microcalcifications of file and initially classified as suspicious (categories 4 and 5) without lesions clinical detectable and reclassified by two examiners, getting a consensus diagnosis. The biopsies were reviewed by two pathologists getting also a consensus diagnosis. Both, mammogram and histopathologic analysis were double blinded reviewed. Qui-square test, Fleiss-square statistic and EPI-INFO 6.0 were used in this study. RESULTS: the correlation between histopathological and mammographic analysis using BI-RADS TM and Le Gal classification showed the same sensitivity of 96.4%, specificity of 55.9 and 30.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 37.5 and 27.5%, and accuracy of 64.6 and 44.6% respectively. The PPV by BI-RADS TM categories was: category 2, 0%; category 3, 1.8%; category 4, 30.8%; and category 5, 60%. The PPV by Le Gal classification was: category 2, 3.1%; category 3, 18.1%; category 4, 26.4%;category 5, 66.7%, and non classified 5.2%. CONCLUSIONS: the results were better for the classification of BI-RADS™, but it did not get to reduce the ambiguity in assessment of breast microcalcifications.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2008;30(2):75-79
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008000200005
PURPOSE: the aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of mammography in the diagnosis of suspicious breast microcalcifications, using BI-RADS TM and Le Gal's classifications. METHODS: one hundred and thirty cases were selected with mammograms contain only microcalcifications of file and initially classified as suspicious (categories 4 and 5) without lesions clinical detectable and reclassified by two examiners, getting a consensus diagnosis. The biopsies were reviewed by two pathologists getting also a consensus diagnosis. Both, mammogram and histopathologic analysis were double blinded reviewed. Qui-square test, Fleiss-square statistic and EPI-INFO 6.0 were used in this study. RESULTS: the correlation between histopathological and mammographic analysis using BI-RADS TM and Le Gal classification showed the same sensitivity of 96.4%, specificity of 55.9 and 30.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 37.5 and 27.5%, and accuracy of 64.6 and 44.6% respectively. The PPV by BI-RADS TM categories was: category 2, 0%; category 3, 1.8%; category 4, 30.8%; and category 5, 60%. The PPV by Le Gal classification was: category 2, 3.1%; category 3, 18.1%; category 4, 26.4%;category 5, 66.7%, and non classified 5.2%. CONCLUSIONS: the results were better for the classification of BI-RADS™, but it did not get to reduce the ambiguity in assessment of breast microcalcifications.