The Implementation of Diagnostic Assessment in Breast Lump Cases: A Cross-Sectional Study in Sragen, Indonesia

Introduction Triple assessment, consisting of clinical breast examination, breast imaging, and fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB), is the gold standard for breast lump diagnosis to avoid diagnostic errors. However, current diagnostic practices for breast lump cases in Indonesia are widely variable and evidence for triple assessment implementation is lacking. We aimed to explore the implementation of diagnostic assessments in breast lump cases, its influencing factors, and its association with diagnostic error. Methods This cross-sectional study consecutively recruited 364 females with breast lumps who underwent surgery in Soehadi Prijonegoro Public Hospital, Sragen, Indonesia. Data were retrospectively collected from patient’s medical records. Diagnostic assessments were classified as single assessment with clinical breast examination, double assessment with clinical breast examination and breast ultrasonography (USG) or fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB), and triple assessment. Diagnostic error was defined as a discrepancy between pre- and post-surgery diagnosis or repeated surgery without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Factors associated with diagnostic assessment implementation, diagnostic error, and repeated surgery were analyzed using the chi-square test. Results The choice of diagnostic assessment was influenced by patients’ age and health insurance (p<0.001). Triple assessment was only implemented in 21 (5.8%) breast lump cases. It was more frequently applied in patients ≥40 years (57.1%) and patients with contributory health insurance (76.2%). Diagnostic errors were observed in 84 cases (23.1%) and 47 patients out of them (47%) experienced repeated surgery. The implementation of diagnostic assessments was not associated with diagnostic error (p=0.257) but was significantly associated with repeated surgery in breast cancer (p<0.001). Repeated surgery rates were significantly lowered in cases receiving double assessment with FNAB (p<0.001). Conclusions The implementation of triple assessment in the local setting was very low. The choice of diagnostic assessment was influenced by patients’ age and health insurance. Further, double assessment applying clinical breast examination and FNAB significantly decreased repeated surgery rates and thus may serve as an alternative to triple assessment in the limited resource setting.