MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183509734 · doi:10.1007/s00268-015-3293-0

Utilization of Percutaneous Needle Biopsy for Breast Diagnosis in a Comprehensive Breast Center: Implications for Development of Quality Indicators

2015· article· en· W2183509734 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claire Holloway, L Alriyees, Refik Saskin

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyBreast cancerConcordanceRadiologyBreast biopsyReferralGeneral surgeryCancerMammographyInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous needle biopsy (PNB) is the standard of care for diagnosis of breast lesions. Rates of excisional biopsy for breast diagnosis in North America have been reported at approximately 35 %, although significant regional variation exists. A target rate of PNB for diagnosis of breast abnormalities is needed to facilitate quality improvement. We sought to describe the use of PNB in a referral practice, the clinical scenarios prompting PNB or surgical biopsy (SB), and the accuracy and rate of PNB to inform the ultimate development of a benchmark rate of PNB in breast diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Female patients age 18-90 years, referred to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, a large teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, with a breast lesion prompting tissue diagnosis with SB and/or PNB between 2002 and 2009 were studied. Each biopsied lesion was characterized by method of biopsy: PNB, SB, or PNB followed by SB. For each lesion, we collected data on patient demographics and breast cancer risk, reason for referral, imaging characteristics (breast imaging-reporting and data system classification, full description, final impression before biopsy), and pathology from each biopsy method. We report concordance between the final impression pre-biopsy and the PNB diagnosis with final surgical diagnosis where applicable. RESULTS: One thousand and twenty-six lesions were biopsied, 987 (96 %) with PNB. The benign:malignant ratio for the entire cohort was 1.2:1. Final impression was concordant with final pathology in 674/862 (78 %) and PNB diagnosis was concordant with SB pathology in 487/556 (88 %). The reasons for SB without PNB were required pathologic evaluation of the entire lesion (n = 19), patient choice (n = 5), other biopsy technique used (n = 6), technical (n = 4), planned mastectomy (n = 3), and enlarging mass (n = 2). 155/559 (28 %) of lesions without evidence of malignancy on PNB ultimately underwent SB. Papillary lesions and radial scars were more likely to undergo SB with or without prior PNB. Lesions deemed to be suspicious or malignant on final impression were more likely to be excised after a benign diagnosis at PNB. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of lesions requiring tissue diagnosis can be accurately diagnosed with PNB. Benchmarks for rates of PNB of 90 % or greater may be considered for performance measurement in appropriate populations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of SurgerySame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207