Developing countries have limited healthcare resources and use different strategies to diagnose breast cancer. Most of the population depends on the public healthcare system, which affects the diagnosis of the tumor. Thus, the indicators observed in developed countries cannot be directly compared with those observed in developing countries because the healthcare infrastructures in developing countries are deficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate breast cancer screening strategies and indicators in developing countries.A systematic review and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Timing, and Setting methodology were performed to identify possible indicators of presentation at diagnosis and the methodologies used in developing countries. We searched PubMed for the terms “Breast Cancer” or “Breast Cancer Screening” and “Developing Country” or “Developing Countries”.In all, 1,149 articles were identified. Of these articles, 45 full articles were selected, which allowed us to identify indicators related to epidemiology, diagnostic intervention (diagnostic strategy, diagnostic infrastructure, percentage of women undergoing mammography), quality of intervention (presentation of symptoms at diagnosis, time to diagnosis, early stage disease), comparisons (trend curves, subpopulations at risk) and survival among different countries.The identification of these indicators will improve the reporting of methodologies used in developing countries and will allow us to evaluate improvements in public health related to breast cancer.

No abstract

Objective: to evaluate symmetry after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for cancer. Methods: a prospective study of patients undergoing BCS. These patients were photographed using the same criteria of evaluation. The references points used were the nipple height difference (NH), the nipple-manubrium distances (NM), nipple-sternum distances (NS) and the angle between the intramammary fold and the nipple (nipple angle; NA). ImageJ software was used. Three breast symmetry models were evaluated: excellent/others (model 1), excellent-good/others (model 2) and others/poor (model 3). The ROC curve was used to select acceptable criteria for the evaluation of symmetry. Decision tree model analysis was performed. Results: a total of 274 women were evaluated. The BCCT.core result was excellent in 5.8% (16), good in 24.1% (66), fair in 46.4% (127) and poor in 23.7% (65). The difference in NH was associated with good breast area (0.837-0.846); acceptable differences were below 3.1 cm, while unacceptable values were greater than 6.4 cm. Differences in the NM were associated with average breast area (0.709-0.789); a difference in value of less than 4.5 cm was acceptable, while values greater than 6.3 cm were unacceptable. In the decision tree combined model, a good-excellent outcome for patients with differential (d) dNH = 1 (0 to 5.30 cm) and dNM ≠ 3 (<6.28 cm); and for a poor/poor result, values dNM = 3 (> 6.35). Conclusions: the results presented here are simple tools that can assist the surgeon for breast symmetry evaluation.

No abstract