Skip to main content
Log in

Attitudes of Gynecologists toward Referral of Women to Breast Imaging Clinics for Breast Cancer Screening or Diagnosis

Einstellung der Gynäkologen zur Überweisung von Frauen an Kliniken für Brustbildgebung zur Brustkrebsvorsorge oder -diagnose

  • Original articles
  • Published:
Die Radiologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether gynecologists considered the age of women when requesting ultrasound (US) and/or mammography examinations. Furthermore, to determine in which situations gynecologists referred patients to breast imaging clinics for breast examinations, and aimed to establish the reasons behind cases of non-referral.

Materials and methods

A questionnaire-based survey was conducted from February to April 2023 among gynecologists practicing at government, university, or private hospitals/centers. The participants were contacted through an online Web link (www.googledocs.com).

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 80 gynecologists. In total, 96.2% of the participants referred women to breast imaging clinics. The proportion of female physicians (70%) was higher than that of male physicians, and 55% were younger than 40 years. Menopause, hormone replacement therapy, and hereditary/genetic or familial breast cancer were the most commonly considered risk factors when referring women. Overall, 75% of participants requested mammography for women aged ≥ 40 years. For women between the ages of 30 and 40, mammography was requested by 40% of physicians. For women younger than 30, US was requested by 70% of participants, while a small number of participants (7.5%) requested mammography if deemed necessary.

Conclusion

Gynecologists tend to refer women to breast imaging clinics for screening rather than for diagnostic purposes. Female gynecologists have a higher tendency for referral, especially if there is a risk factor involved. Seminars or courses at gynecology conferences can be organized by experienced breast imaging specialists to give detailed information about breast cancer and examination methods according to patient age. This will ensure better breast assessment.

Zusammenfassung

Zweck

Es wurde untersucht, ob Gynäkologen das Alter der Frauen berücksichtigen, wenn sie eine Sonographie (Ultraschall, US) und/oder Mammographie beantragen. Darüber hinaus wurde ermittelt, in welchen Fällen Gynäkologen Patientinnen zur Brustuntersuchung an Kliniken für bildgebende Verfahren überwiesen haben, wobei die Gründe für die Nichtüberweisung eruiert werden sollten.

Materialien und Methoden

Von Februar bis April 2023 wurde eine fragebogenbasierte Umfrage unter Gynäkologen durchgeführt, die an staatlichen, universitären oder privaten Krankenhäusern/Zentren praktizieren. Die Teilnehmerinnen wurden über einen Online-Web-Link kontaktiert (www.googledocs.com).

Ergebnisse

Der Fragebogen wurde von 80 Gynäkologen ausgefüllt. Insgesamt überwiesen 96,2 % der Teilnehmerinnen Frauen an Kliniken für Brustbildgebung. Der Anteil der weiblichen Ärzte (70 %) war höher als der Anteil männlicher Ärzte, und 55 % waren jünger als 40 Jahre. Menopause, Hormonersatztherapie und erblicher/genetischer oder familiärer Brustkrebs waren die am häufigsten genannten Risikofaktoren bei der Überweisung von Frauen. Insgesamt forderten 75 % der Teilnehmerinnen eine Mammographie für Frauen im Alter von ≥ 40 an. Bei Frauen im Alter zwischen 30 und 40 Jahren wurde die Mammographie von 40 % der Ärzte angefordert. Bei Frauen unter 30 Jahren verlangten 70 % der Teilnehmerinnen eine US-Untersuchung, während nur wenige Teilnehmerinnen (7,5 %) eine Mammographie verlangten, wenn sie diese für notwendig hielten.

Schlussfolgerung

Gynäkologen überweisen Frauen eher zum Screening als zu diagnostischen Zwecken an Kliniken für Brustbildgebung. Gynäkologinnen neigen eher zu einer Überweisung, insbesondere wenn ein Risikofaktor vorliegt. Auf gynäkologischen Konferenzen können Seminare oder Kurse von erfahrenen Spezialisten für Brustbildgebung organisiert werden, um detaillierte Informationen über Brustkrebs und altersgerechte Untersuchungsmethoden zu vermitteln; dies erlaubt eine bessere Beurteilung der Brust.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

The data of this study cannot be shared with third parties in accordance with the patient informed consent forms.

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136(5):E359–E386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Committee on Gynecologic Practice, ACOG (2006) ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 334, May 2006 (replaces No. 186, September 1997): Role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the screening and diagnosis of breast masses. Obstet Gynecol 107(5):1213–1214

    Google Scholar 

  3. Subbarao RR, Raja RS (2004) Gynecologist and breast cancer. J Obstet Gynecol 54(5):439–448

    Google Scholar 

  4. Singh GN, Agarwal A, Jain V, Kumar P (2019) Understanding and practices of gynaecologists related to breast cancer screening, detection, treatment and common breast diseases: a study from India. World J Surg 43(1):183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Junior RF, Oliveira EL, Marinho ER et al (2003) Knowledge on screening and diagnosis of breast cancer among gynecologists in Goiãs State (Brazil). Rev Assoc Med Bras 49(3):312–316

    Google Scholar 

  6. Marchant DJ (1994) Role of the obstetrician/gynecologist in the management of breast disease. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 21(3):421–431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marchant DJ (1993) Diagnosis of breast disease and the role of the gynecologist. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 5(1):67–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heena H, Durrani S, Riaz M et al (2019) Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to breast cancer screening among female health care professionals: a cross sectional study. BMC Womens Health 19(1):122

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lurie N, Margolis KL, McGovern P et al (1997) Why do patients of femalephysicians have higher rates of breast and cervical cancerscreening? J Gen Intern Med 12(1):34–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lurie N, Slater J, McGovern P et al (1993) Preventive care for women. Does the sex of the physician matter? N Engl J Med 329(7):478–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelly JM (1980) Sex preference in patient selection of a family physician. J Fam Pract 11:427–433

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Blake RL Jr. (1990) Gender concordance between family practice residents and their patients in an ambulatory-care setting. Acad Med 65:702–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Comstock LM, Hooper EM, Goodwin JM et al (1982) Physician behaviors that correlate with patient satisfaction. J Med Educ 57:105–112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Tancredi DJ et al (2012) Screening mammography beliefs and recommendations: a web-based survey of primary care physicians. BMC Health Serv Res 12:32

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Khrouf S, LetaiefKsontini F, Ayadi M et al (2020) Breast cancer screening: a dividing controversy. Tunis Med 98(1):22–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM et al (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09–41. Radiology 265:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormaek JB (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP et al (2016) Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 164(4):268–278

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C et al (2015) Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med 162(3):157–166

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Molleran VM (2015) Will supplemental screening ultrasound increase breast cancer overdiagnosis? Acad Radiol 22(8):967–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Evans A, Trimboli RM, Athanasiou A et al (2018) Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging. Insights Imaging 9(4):449–461

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P et al (2017) ACR appropriatenesscriteria® breastcancerscreening. J Am Coll Radiol 14(11S):S383–S390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study did not receive any sponsorship or other type of third-party funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burçin Tutar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

B. Tutar declares that she has no competing interests.

The ethical committee of Medipol University approved this prospective observational study (decision number: 177, date: 16.02.2023) and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

The supplement containing this article is not sponsored by industry.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

figure qr

Scan QR code & read article online

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tutar, B. Attitudes of Gynecologists toward Referral of Women to Breast Imaging Clinics for Breast Cancer Screening or Diagnosis. Radiologie 63 (Suppl 2), 108–112 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-023-01225-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-023-01225-5

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation