Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Clinical evaluation of three methods of fine-needle aspiration, large-core needle biopsy and frozen section biopsy with focus staining for non-palpable breast disease].

Authors: Yao-Pan, Wu; Pei-Qiang, Cai; Wei-Zhang, Zhang; Jun, Tang; Yang-Kui, Gu; Li, Li; Yi, Ouyang; +2 Authors

[Clinical evaluation of three methods of fine-needle aspiration, large-core needle biopsy and frozen section biopsy with focus staining for non-palpable breast disease].

Abstract

Early detection of breast cancer is crucial to improve the therapeutic effect and to increase the survival rate. However, it is difficult because breast cancer in early stage was usually occult, impalpable, and could not be detected by laboratory test. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of three methods for diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer.Twenty-four patients with impalpable breast mass suggested by computer-aided stereotactic mammography were performed with three kinds of methods, including fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), large-core needle biopsy (LCNB), and frozen section biopsy (FSB) with focus staining. The results were compared with postoperative pathology.Compared with postoperative pathology results, the diagnostic consistent rates of FNAC, LCNB and FSB with staining focus were 75%, 92%, and 100%, respectively (P< 0.05).Frozen section with focus staining guided by computer-aided stereotactic mammography was the effective diagnostic technique for non-palpable breast cancer.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Breast Diseases, Palpation, Biopsy, Needle, Frozen Sections, Humans, Female, Breast, Middle Aged, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!