COVID-19 pandemisi başlangıcından önce ve sonra yapılan meme biyopsilerinin değerlendirilmesi: Tek merkezli retrospektif çalışma

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 12 - 17, 23.03.2023

Funda Ulu Öztürk , Şehnaz Tezcan

https://doi.org/10.18663/tjcl.1242259

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma ile COVID-19 pandemisi öncesi ve pandemi sırasında radyoloji biriminde yapılan meme biyopsilerini değerlendirmek ve bu dönemlerdeki meme kanseri teşhislerini karşılaştırmak amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Mart 2020 öncesi ve sonrasındaki 2 yıl boyunca yapılan meme biyopsileri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastaların demografi bilgileri, başvuru sebebi (tarama/tanısal), biyopsi tipi ve bölgesi, kitle boyutu, BI-RADS kategorisi ve patolojisi değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel analiz için ki-kare testi, bağımsız örneklem t-testi ve Mann-Whitney U testi kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Toplam 903 biyopsi hastasında ortalama yaş 51 (15-88) bulundu. Biyopsi sayısının pandeminin erken ilk 6 ayında düşüp hemen sonrasında, pre-pandemi döneminden de fazla olmak suretiyle, yükselmeye başladığı izlendi. Pandemi döneminde tarama başvuruları ile ilişkili biyopsi sayıları anlamlı olarak düşerken tanısal başvurularla gelen biyopsi sayılarının arttığı görüldü (p<0.05). Tanısal amaçlı en sık kullanılan görüntüleme yöntemi pandemi öncesi mamografi iken pandemi sonrası ultrason olmuştur (p<0.05). Biyopsi tipi, bölgesi, kitle boyutu, aksiller lenf nodu tutulumu ve patoloji sonuçlarında dönemsel olarak anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı.
Sonuçlar: Erken pandemi döneminde meme biyopsisi sayısında izlenen ani düşüşe rağmen, hemen izleyen dönemde tarama ilişkili biyopsi sayısında azalma ve tanısal başvurulara bağlı yapılan biyopsi sayısında belirgin artış saptandı. Bu sebeple, olası kanser kanser yoğunluğunun önüne geçebilmek amacıyla kanser tarama programlarının sekteye uğramaması için gerekli önlemler alınmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

COVID-19, breast cancer, imaging aided breast biopsy

Destekleyen Kurum

Başkent Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

KA22-271

The evaluation of breast biopsy results before and after the inception of COVID-19 pandemic: Single center retrospective study

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate breast biopsy procedures performed in radiology unit before and after COVID-19 pandemic initiation, and compare breast cancer diagnosis.
Material and Methods: Breast biopsies performed two years before and after March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient demographics, referral reason (screening/diagnostic), biopsy type and region, tumor size, BI-RADS category and pathology were evaluated. Statistical analysis was made using chi-square test, independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test.
Results: Among 903 biopsies, the mean age was 51 (range 15 to 88 years). Biopsy volume decreased in the early six months of the pandemic, but accelerated soon after, with numbers even more than the pre-pandemic era. Screening intention on patient referral decreased significantly in the pandemic period, where diagnostic purposes arised (p<0.05). The prominent imaging modality used for diagnosis was mammography before pandemic and ultrasonography after pandemic (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference regarding biopsy type, biopsy region, tumor size, axillary lymph node invasion and pathology results by period.
Conclusion: Despite the sudden decrease of breast biopsy volume in the early pandemic, demand of screening reduced and diagnostic referrals increased dramatically afterwards . Therefore, the interruption of cancer screening programmes should be avoided to prevent cancer burden.

Anahtar Kelimeler

imaging guided breast biopsy, COVID-19, breast cancer

Proje Numarası

KA22-271

Kaynakça

• 1. Epic Health Research Network. Cancer Screenings Are Still Lagging. https://ehrn.org/articles/cancer-screenings-are-still-lagging. Updated June 9, 2021. Accessed DATE.
• 2. Corley DA, Sedki M, et al. Cancer Screening During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic: A Perspective From the National Cancer Institute’s PROSPR Consortium. Gastroenterology 2021;160(4):999–1002.
• 3. Nyante SJ, Benefield TS, Kuzmiak CM, Earnhardt K, Pritchard M, Henderson LM. Population-level impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on breast cancer screening and diagnostic procedures. Cancer 2021 Jun 15;127(12):2111-21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33460.
• 4. Sharpless NE. COVID-19 and cancer. Science 2020 Jun 19;368(6497):1290. doi: 10.1126/science.abd3377.
• 5. COVIDSurg Collaborative. Elective surgery cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic: global predictive modelling to inform surgical recovery plans. Br J Surg 2020 Oct;107(11):1440-9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11746.
• 6. Duszak R Jr, Maze J, Sessa C, Fleishon HB, Golding LP, Nicola GN, et al. Characteristics of COVID-19 Community Practice Declines in Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Professional Work. J Am Coll Radiol 2020 Nov;17(11):1453-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.06.031.
• 7. Parikh KD, Ramaiya NH, Kikano EG, Tirumani SH, Pandya H, Stovicek B, et al COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Decreased Imaging Utilization: A Single Institutional Experience. Acad Radiol 2020 Sep;27(9):1204-13. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.06.024.
• 8. Sprague BL, Lowry KP, Miglioretti DL, Alsheik N, Bowles EJA, Tosteson ANA, et al. Changes in Mammography Use by Women's Characteristics During the First 5 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Natl Cancer Ins 2021 Sep 4;113(9):1161-7. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab045.
• 9. Linck PA, Garnier C, Depetiteville MP, MacGrogan G, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Quénel-Tueux N, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown in France on the diagnosis and staging of breast cancers in a tertiary cancer centre. Eur Radiol 2022 Mar;32(3):1644-51. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08264-3.
• 10. Maringe C, Spicer J, Morris M, Purushotham A, Nolte E, Sullivan R, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study. Lancet Oncol 2020 Aug;21(8):1023-34. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30388-0.
• 11. Kuitunen I, Ponkilainen VT, Uimonen MM, Paloneva J, Launonen AP, Mattila VM. Postponing elective surgery due to COVID-19 did not decrease the oncological surgery rate in Finland. Br J Surg 2021 May 27;108(5):e191-e193. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znab046.
• 12. Hortobagyi GN, Connolly JL, D’Orsi CJ et al (2017) American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) cancer staging manual . 8th edn. In: ew York : Springer. pp 589–28.
• 13. Song H, Bergman A, Chen AT, Ellis D, David G, Friedman AB, et al. Disruptions in preventive care: Mammograms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Serv Res 2021;56(1):95–101.
• 14. Yin K, Singh P, Drohan B, Hughes KS. Breast imaging, breast surgery, and cancer genetics in the age of COVID-19. Cancer 2020 Oct 15;126(20):4466-72. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33113.
• 15. Soran A, Gimbel M, Diego E. Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up During COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur J Breast Health 2020 Mar 25;16(2):86-8. doi: 10.5152/ejbh.2020.240320.
• 16. Parchani A, Vidhya K, Panda PK, Rawat VS, Bahurupi YA, Kalita D, et al. Fear, Anxiety, Stress, and Depression of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Among Patients and Their Healthcare Workers - A Descriptive Study. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2021 Oct 22;14:1737-46. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S324233.
• 17. Mehta N, Sales RM, Babagbemi K, Levy AD, McGrath AL, Drotman M, et al. Unilateral axillary Adenopathy in the setting of COVID-19 vaccine. Clin Imaging 2021 Jul;75:12-5. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.01.016.