Medizinische Universität Graz Austria/Österreich - Forschungsportal - Medical University of Graz
Gewählte Publikation:
Fischer, P.
Differences in the interpretation of the R classification -with a special focus on breast cancer
Humanmedizin; [ Diplomarbeit ] Medizinische Universität Graz; 2023. pp. 109
[OPEN ACCESS]
FullText
- Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz:
- Betreuer*innen:
- Regitnig Peter
- Sunitsch Sandra
- Altmetrics:
- Abstract:
- Background: The “Residual Tumour (R) Classification” of the TNM classification of the UICC reports about the presence or absence of residual tumour after treatment. In this study, we reviewed numerous guidelines as well as the “TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours”, the “TNM Supplement” of the UICC and the “AJCC Cancer Staging Manual” regarding their interpretation of the “R classification” and created an anonymised questionnaire to gather the opinions of the “R classification” in various medical professions dealing with breast cancer. The aim of this thesis was to work on this topic and present different perspectives. The objective was to find out what different understandings exist between the various medical professions. Methods: The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions and was divided into three sections: “General”, “General TNM Classification” and “Specific Questions Regarding Breast Cancer Diagnosis”. A total of 303 practitioners participated in the questionnaire, answering it either fully (172), partially (30), and some participants solely opened it without starting (101). However, only the answers of gynaecologists/surgeons (88) and pathologists (80) could be considered because the sample sizes of these two professions were large enough to be analysed. When the survey closed, the collected answers and the participants’ opinions were analysed using “SPSS version 26”. Frequencies and percentages were used to display responses to individual questions as well as Person’s Chi-Square Test to analyse if there is a significant difference between the opinions of the various medical professions. Results: The study could show that there exist considerable differences regarding the interpretation of the “R classification” among the examined medical professions as well as within the same medical profession. Conclusion: The thesis concludes with implications for further research, proposes a separate classification for the resection margin, and lists two different approaches to the assessment of the “R classification”. It should either be done together on an interdisciplinary basis in the tumour board or by the treating physician who is most familiar with the patient’s medical history.