Are you Aysenur Oktay?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)5.34 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To determine the frequency by which breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides information that influences the surgical management of patients with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August 2006 to December 2008, contrast-enhanced bilateral breast MRI was performed on 68 patients, all of whom exhibited highly suspicious imaging findings (BI-RADS category 4 or 5). Patients were grouped according to their histopathological diagnosis and type of breast parenchyma. All of the enrolled patients were believed to be candidates for breast conservation on the basis of physical examination, mammography, and ultrasonography. The patients were reevaluated with the MRI examination as to whether they were still candidates for breast conservation therapy. RESULTS: The MRI findings changed the previous management plans in 19.1% of the 68 patients. With respect to the surgical approach, no statistically significant difference was observed between the histopathology groups (P = 0.403). In terms of the breast parenchymal pattern, however, surgical planning was changed in 53.8% of the patients who exhibited a dense pattern, which was significantly different from the rates of the other groups (P = 0.006). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the MRI for additional malignant lesion detection and identification were 85%, 98%, 92%, and 96%, respectively. The agreement test revealed 86% agreement (very good) between the additional findings observed on the MRI and the histopathological results. CONCLUSION: If breast-conserving surgery is planned, an MRI should be performed in all women with suspected breast cancer, especially those exhibiting dense or heterogeneously dense breast parenchyma, for which the sensitivity of both ultrasonography and mammography is low.
    Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) 05/2012; · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To evaluate the necessity and direct cost effectiveness of screening and staging procedures in breast cancer patients having ≥4 positive axillary lymph nodes and to identify further possible biopathological risk factors associated with increased risk of metastasis. METHODS: We reviewed the demographic and clinicopathological data from the medical records of 1897 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Patients having ≥4 positive axillary lymph nodes after primary surgery for breast cancer and who had staging examinations for metastasis were eligible. The impact of staging procedures (thoracoabdominal CT, bone scan etc.) for detecting metastasis, decision of adjuvant treatment and direct costs were analyzed in 329 patients with operable breast cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-five (10.6%) patients were found with metastasis at diagnosis. Seven (20.0%) among them had multiple metastases. Eighteen (51.4%) had lung, 17 (48.6%) bone, and 7 (20.0%) liver metastasis. Twenty-one (60.0%) patients needed further radiological investigation for metastasis confirmation. Treatment decision was changed in 27 (77.1%) patients. No statistically significant risk factor was identified among the metastatic patients by means of conventional demographic and biopathological parameters. The cost of screening was lower when compared to the cost of treatment without any screening procedure. CONCLUSION: Since the conventional clinicopathological data seems not sufficient to define the risk of developing metastasis in breast cancer patients with ≥4 axillary lymph node involvement, all of them should undergo full staging examinations until new parameters based on genomic level are defined. Staging procedures need modification for high risk breast cancer patients.
    Journal of B.U.ON.: official journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology 07/2010; 15(3):561-7. · 0.76 Impact Factor
  • The Breast Journal 06/2009; 15(4):418-9. · 1.83 Impact Factor
  • Cytopathology 01/2008; 18(6):384-7. · 1.71 Impact Factor