GK News 2 - шаблон joomla Видео

Banner1

Log in
Powered by Spearhead Software Labs Joomla Facebook Like Button
10 May 2017
Naoual Benhmidou1, Fadoua Rais1, Fadila Kouhen2, Abdelhak Maghous1, Hasna Loughlimi1, Khadija Bellahammou3, Hanan Elkacemi1, Tayeb Kebdani1, Sanaa Elmajjaoui1, Noureddine Benjaafar1 1)
10 May 2017
Khadija Bellahammou1, Asmaa Lakhdissi1,
10 May 2017
Khaled Moursy Salama1, Monira T.
02 April 2017
Bardia Bidarmaghz, Ryo Mizumoto, Rasika

BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL

FreeDigitalPhotos.net FreeDigitalPhotos.net

George Baytchev1, Ivan Inkov1, Nikola Kyuchukov1, Emilia Zlateva2

1) Department Of Thoracic Surgery, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria.

2) Department Of Radiology, Hospital “Avis Medica”, Pleven, Bulgaria.

Disclosure: The author has declared no conflicts of interest.

Received: 03.05.15 Accepted: 24.05.15

1486385429 Quote  doi: 10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608

pdf icon  Fulltext PDF Download

export icona  EndNote/RefWorks

statistics market icon32  Article Statistics

Abstract:

The Gail model is a statistical tool, which assesses breast cancer probability, based on nonmodifiable risk factors. In contrast, the evaluation of mammographic breast density is an independent and dynamic risk factor influenced by interventions modifying breast cancer risk incidence.
The aim of the present study is to compare the possibilities for risk factor integration and analysis and to search for a correlation between mammographic density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk evaluation. The subject of this prospective study is a cohort of 107 women at ages from 37 to 71 years, who have had benign breast diseases, digital mammograms, and Gail model risk evaluation.
Mammographic density is evaluated in craniocaudal projection subjectively visually and objectively using the computer imaging software. (Image J software) The Gail risk evaluation is completed using the standardized NCI questionnaire (Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool).
In concordance with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RAD) by ACR, mammographic density is evaluated using a four-grade scale. Low density D1 (less than 25%) was determined in 24 cases, D2 (25-50%) in 36 cases, D3 (51-75%) in 31 cases and high density D4 (greater than 75%) in 16 cases.
According to the Gail model, 80 (74,8%) of the examined patients did not have an increased risk (less than 1,67% for a five-year period), whereas the remaining 27 (25,2%) had a statistically significant increase in risk (greater than 1,67% for a five-year period). Women with increased risk more often present with denser breast (34% with D3, D4 versus 18,3% for D1, D2).
The Gail model does not adequately explain the correlation between breast density and statistically calculated risk. The development of more detailed tools, which take into consideration breast density, as well as other risk factors, may be helpful for a more accurate evaluation of the individual risk for breast cancer.

Keywords: breast cancer, risk evaluation, Gail model, mammographic density


How to Cite this Article

Bibliography

Baitchev, G., Inkov, I., Kyuchukov, N. and Zlateva, E. (2015) ‘Breast cancer risk evaluation - A correlation between Mammographic density and the Gail model’, International Journal of Surgery and Medicine, 1(1), pp. 18–21. doi: 10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608.

Citations, Quotes & Annotations

Baitchev, G., Inkov, I., Kyuchukov, N. and Zlateva, E. (2015) ‘Breast cancer risk evaluation - A correlation between Mammographic density and the Gail model’, International Journal of Surgery and Medicine, 1(1), pp. 18–21. doi: 10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608.
(Baitchev, Inkov, et al., 2015)
 

Cited by:

google scholar

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.

 09 May 2017
  467  
Fazlý Yanýk1; Gonul Sagiroglu2; Elif Copuroglu2; Yekta Altemur Karamustafaoglu1
 467 
Fazlý Yanýk1; Gonul Sagiroglu2; Elif Copuroglu2; Yekta Altemur Karamustafaoglu1
09 May 2017
 28 March 2017
  561  
Zuvdija Cecunjanin1, Amina Selimovic2, Selma Milisic1, Ermina Mujicic3
 561 
Zuvdija Cecunjanin1, Amina Selimovic2, Selma Milisic1, Ermina Mujicic3
28 March 2017
 28 March 2017
  874  
Michele Bisaccia1, Luigi Piscitelli1, Giovanni Colleruoli1, Giuseppe Rinonapoli1, Cristina Ibáñez Vicente1, Gabriele Falzarano2, Antonio Medici2, Luigi Meccariello3, Olga Bisaccia4, ...
 874 
Michele Bisaccia1, Luigi Piscitelli1, Giovanni Colleruoli1, Giuseppe Rinonapoli1, Cristina Ibáñez Vicente1, Gabriele Falzarano2, ...
28 March 2017
 26 March 2017
  603  
Roman Romansky1, George Baytchev2, Ivan Inkov2, Stefan Komitski1
 603 
Roman Romansky1, George Baytchev2, Ivan Inkov2, Stefan Komitski1
26 March 2017
 26 March 2017
  415  
Andrea Cappiello1, Verdiana Stano2, Michele Bisaccia1, Luigi Meccariello3, Gabriele Falzarano4, Antonio Medici4, Marco Pellegrino1, Olga Bisaccia5, Giuseppe Rinonapoli1, Auro Caraffa1.
 415 
Andrea Cappiello1, Verdiana Stano2, Michele Bisaccia1, Luigi Meccariello3, Gabriele Falzarano4, Antonio Medici4, Marco Pellegrino1, Olga Bisaccia5, ...
26 March 2017
 26 March 2017
  429  
Ventsislav Mutafchiyski1, Georgi Popivanov1, Dimitar Penchev1, Albena Fakirova2, Ivan Inkov3, Rumen Popov4
 429 
Ventsislav Mutafchiyski1, Georgi Popivanov1, Dimitar Penchev1, Albena Fakirova2, Ivan Inkov3, Rumen Popov4
26 March 2017
 26 March 2017
  605  
Thulasikumar Ganapathy1, Marunraj Gnanasekaran2, Aravind Moorthy3
 605 
Thulasikumar Ganapathy1, Marunraj Gnanasekaran2, Aravind Moorthy3
26 March 2017
 26 March 2017
  543  
Daniele Maiettini1, Marta Rossi2, Michele Bisaccia3, Auro Caraffa3, Luigi Meccariello4, Gabriele Falzarano5, Antonio Medici5, Luigi Piscitelli3, Giulio Metro2, Alberto Rebonato1
 543 
Daniele Maiettini1, Marta Rossi2, Michele Bisaccia3, Auro Caraffa3, Luigi Meccariello4, Gabriele Falzarano5, Antonio Medici5, Luigi Piscitelli3, ...
26 March 2017