Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 5ÆÇ¿¡ ±Ù°ÅÇÏ¿© ºÐ¼®ÇÑ 3Â÷ º´¿øÀÇ °ËÁø À¯¹æÃÔ¿µ¼úÀÇ ÀÇÇÐÀû °¨»ç º¸°í Medical Audit of Screening Mammography at a Tertiary Referral Hospital Using the 5th Edition of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

´ëÇÑ¿µ»óÀÇÇÐȸÁö 2019³â 80±Ç 3È£ p.513 ~ 523
º¯Á¤Èñ, ±è¹ÎÁ¤, ¹Ú¿µÁø, À±Á¤Çö, ¹®ÈñÁ¤, ±èÀº°æ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
º¯Á¤Èñ ( Byon Jung-Hee ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¼ºê¶õ½ºº´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú

±è¹ÎÁ¤ ( Kim Min-Jung ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¼ºê¶õ½ºº´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú
¹Ú¿µÁø ( Park Young-Jean ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¼ºê¶õ½ºº´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú
À±Á¤Çö ( Yoon Jung-Hyun ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¼ºê¶õ½ºº´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú
¹®ÈñÁ¤ ( Moon Hee-Jung ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¼ºê¶õ½ºº´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú
±èÀº°æ ( Kim Eun-Kyung ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¼ºê¶õ½ºº´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú

Abstract

¸ñÀû: 3Â÷ º´¿ø¿¡¼­ ½ÃÇàÇÑ ¼±º° µðÁöÅÐ À¯¹æÃÔ¿µ¼úÀÇ ÀÇÇÐÀû °¨»ç¸¦ È®ÀÎÇÏ°í, °³Á¤µÈ ±âÁØ¿¡ µû¸¥ ÀÇÇÐÀû °¨»çÀÇ º¯È­ ¿©ºÎ¸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÑ´Ù.

´ë»ó°ú ¹æ¹ý: 2013³â 1¿ùºÎÅÍ 2014³â 12¿ù±îÁö º»¿ø¿¡¼­ ¼±º° À¯¹æÃÔ¿µ¼úÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÑ 30¼¼ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¹«Áõ»ó ¿©¼º 7764¸íÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ȯÀÚµéÀÇ À¯¹æ¾Ï °¡Á··Â, ºÎÀξÏÀ̳ª ´Ù¸¥ ¾ÏÀÇ °ú°Å·ÂÀ» ÈÄÇâÀûÀ¸·Î È®ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼® 1Àº ¹üÁÖ 3À» ¾ç¼º °á°ú·Î Á¤ÀÇÇÏ°í, ºÐ¼® 2´Â ¹üÁÖ 3À» À½¼º °á°ú·Î Á¤ÀÇÇÏ¿© ºÐ¼® 1°ú 2ÀÇ ÀÇÇÐÀû °¨»ç¸¦ ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: Àüü ¾Ï ¹ß°ßÀ²Àº °Ë»ç õ °Ç´ç 4.6°ÇÀ̾ú´Ù. ºñºÎÀÎ¾Ï ¹× ºñ°©»ó¼± ¾Ï ȯÀÚ Ãµ °Ç´ç ¾Ï ¹ß°ßÀ²(n = 391, 51.2°Ç)ÀÌ À¯¹æ¾Ï °ú°Å·Â(n = 691, 1.4°Ç)À̳ª ºÎÀξÏȯÀÚ(n = 311, 12.9°Ç)¿Í ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© °¡Àå ³ô¾Ò´Ù. º»¿ø °á°ú´Â °³Á¤µÈ ±âÁØ ¸ñǥġ¿¡ ¸ðµÎ ÇÕ´çÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼® 1Àº ºÐ¼® 2¿Í ºñ±³ÇØ ¾ç¼º¿¹Ãøµµ 1ÀÌ 1.3% (6.0% vs. 7.3%) °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´°í, ¼ÒȯÀ²Àº 1.3% (7.3% vs. 6.0%) Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á·Ð: 3Â÷ º´¿ø¿¡¼­ ½ÃÇàÇÑ ¼±º° µðÁöÅÐ À¯¹æÃÔ¿µ¼úÀÇ ÀÇÇÐÀû °¨»ç °á°ú´Â ¿ì¼öÇßÀ¸¸ç, ¹üÁÖ 3À» ¾ç¼º °á°ú·Î °£ÁÖÇÏ¿©µµ °á°ú¿¡´Â Å« ¿µÇâÀ» ³¢Ä¡Áö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. 3Â÷ º´¿ø¿¡¼­´Â 2Â÷ ¾ÏÀ¸·Î¼­ÀÇ À¯¹æ¾Ï¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼±º°°Ë»ç°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇØ º¸ÀδÙ.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze medical audit of screening digital mammography at a tertiary hospital and to review changes of medical audit according to newly revised standard.

Materials and Methods: We analyzed 7764 asymptomatic women who underwent screening mammogram at our hospital from January, 2013 to December, 2014. The family or past history of breast, gynecologic and other cancers was reviewed retrospectively. Analysis 1 defined category 3 as positive result and analysis 2 defined category 3 as negative.

Results: The overall cancer detection rate was 4.6 per 1000 cases. The cancer detection rate in patients with non-gynecological and non-thyroid cancer (n = 391, 51.2) was the highest compared to patients with family history of breast cancer (n = 691, 1.4), or gynecological cancer (n = 311, 12.9). In analysis 1, positive predictive value 1 decreased 1.3% (6.0% vs. 7.3%) and recall rate increased 1.3% (7.3% vs. 6.0%) compared with analysis 2. The results were appropriate for newly revised target.

Conclusion: The results of screening digital mammography in the tertiary medical institution showed excellent results even if category 3 was regarded as positive. In addition, screening tests for secondary cancer are needed in the tertiary hospital.

Å°¿öµå

Breast Cancer; Medical Audit; Mammography; Screening; Tertiary Care Centers

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS