Consensus meeting of breast imaging

• Verfasst von: Müller-Schimpfle, Markus [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Bader, Werner [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Golatta, Michael [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Consensus meeting of breast imaging
• Titelzusatz: BI-RADS and beyond
• Verf.angabe: Markus Müller-Schimpfle, Werner Bader, Pascal Baltzer, Maria Bernathova, Michael Fuchsjäger, Michael Golatta, Thomas H. Helbich, Karin Hellerhoff, Sylvia H. Heywang-Köbrunner, Claudia Kurtz, Alexander Mundinger, Katja C. Siegmann-Luz, Per Skaane, Chistine Solbach, Stefanie Weigel
• E-Jahr: 2019
• Jahr: October 02, 2019
• Umfang: 7 S.
• Teil: volume:14
• Teil: year:2019
• Teil: number:5
• Teil: pages:308-314
• Teil: extent:7
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 07.01.2020
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Breast care
• Ort Quelle: Basel : Karger, 2006
• Jahr Quelle: 2019
• Band/Heft Quelle: 14(2019), 5, Seite 308-314
• ISSN Quelle: 1661-3805
• DOI: doi:10.1159/000503412
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1686535732

Abstract

Organizers of medical educational courses are often confronted with questions that are clinically relevant yet trespassing the frontiers of scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine at the point of care. Therefore, since 2007 organizers of breast teaching courses in German language met biannually to find a consensus in clinically relevant questions that have not been definitely answered by science. The questions were prepared during the 3 months before the meeting according to a structured process and finally agreed upon the day before the consensus meeting. At the consensus meeting, the open questions concerning 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound, MR mammography, interventions as well as risk-based imaging of the breast were presented first for electronic anonymized voting, and then the results of the audience were separately displayed from the expert votes. Thereafter, an introductory statement of the moderator was followed by pros/cons of two experts, and subsequently the final voting was performed. With ≥75% of votes of the expert panel, an answer qualified as a consensus statement. Seventeen consensus statements were gained, addressing for instance the use of 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound in screening, MR mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk, markers for localization of pathologic axillary lymph nodes, and standards in risk-based imaging of the breast. After the evaluation, comments from the experts on each field were gathered supplementarily. Methodology, transparency, and soundness of statements achieve a unique yield for all course organizers and provide solid pathways for decision making in breast imaging.