Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-2 (2)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  The influence of clinicopathological features on the predictive accuracy of conventional breast imaging in determining the extent of screen-detected high-grade pure ductal carcinoma in situ 
The extent of calcified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by screening mammography is a determinant for treatment with breast conserving surgery (BCS). However, DCIS may be uncalcified and almost a quarter of patients with DCIS treated initially by BCS either require a second operation or are found to have unexpected invasive disease following surgery. Identification of these cases might guide selective implementation of additional diagnostic procedures.
A retrospective review of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of pure high-grade DCIS at the Southampton and Salisbury Breast Screening Unit over a ten-year period was carried out. Mammograms were reviewed independently by a consultant radiologist and additional factors including the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) breast density score, DCIS extent and disease location within the breast recorded.
Unexpected invasive disease was found in 35 of 144 patients (24%). Within our unit the re-excision rate for all screen-detected DCIS is currently 23% but for patients included in this study with high-grade DCIS the re-excision rate was 39% (34/87). The extent of DCIS (p=0.008) and lack of expression of the oestrogen receptor (ER) predicted the requirement for re-excision in both univariate (p=0.004) and multivariate analysis (p=0.005).
High-grade DCIS may be focally uncalcified, leading to underestimation of disease extent, which might be related to ER status. Invasive foci associated with high-grade DCIS are often mammographically occult. Exploration of additional biomarkers and targeted use of further diagnostic techniques may improve the preoperative staging of DCIS.
PMCID: PMC3365457  PMID: 21943463
Breast; Carcinoma in situ; Screening; Estrogen receptor
2.  Frequency of abdominal wall hernias: is classical teaching out of date? 
JRSM Short Reports  2011;2(1):5.
Abdominal wall hernias are common. Various authors all quote the following order (in decreasing frequency): inguinal, femoral, umbilical followed by rarer forms. But are these figures outdated? We investigated the epidemiology of hernia repair (retrospective review) over 30 years to determine whether the relative frequencies of hernias are evolving.
All hernia repairs undertaken in consecutive adult patients were assessed. Data included: patient demographics; hernia type; and operation details. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS.
A single United Kingdom hospital trust during three periods: 1985–1988; 1995–1998; and 2005–2008.
Main outcome measures
Frequency data of different hernia types during three time periods, patient demographic data.
Over the three time periods, 2389 patients underwent 2510 hernia repairs (i.e. including bilateral and multiple hernias in a single patient). Inguinal hernia repair was universally the commonest hernia repair, followed by umbilical, epigastric, para-umbilical, incisional and femoral, respectively. Whereas femoral hernia repair was the second commonest in the 1980s, it had become the fifth most common by 2005–2008. While the proportion of groin hernia repairs has decreased over time, the proportion of midline abdominal wall hernias has increased.
The current relative frequency of different hernia repair type is: inguinal; umbilical; epigastric; incisional; para-umbilical; femoral; and finally other types e.g. spigelian. This contrasts with hernia incidence figures quoted in common reference books.
PMCID: PMC3031184  PMID: 21286228

Results 1-2 (2)