OBJECTIVE: Oral health can affect a patient’s general health and quality of life. Given the increase in breast cancer survival rates, investigations of factors influencing the quality of life of survivors have gained importance. Therefore, the objective of our study was to characterize oral health in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control study. Forty-eight women who survived breast cancer (age 62.1±9.1 years) and 48 healthy controls (age 61.8±8.6 years) were included. For each case and control, a complete oral evaluation chart was completed. RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic periodontal disease was 98% in breast cancer survivors and 87% in controls. The breast cancer survivors had a median of 16 remaining teeth, whereas controls had a median of 22 remaining teeth (p = 0.03). The percentage of sites with gingival bleeding was 16.05% (0-100%) in breast cancer survivors and 0% (0-72%) in controls (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Chronic periodontal disease and tooth loss were highly prevalent in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. To improve survivors’ quality of life, a preventive oral health evaluation should be available prior to cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes and diagnostic performance of ultrasonography after a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (Bi-RADS) category 0 mammogram. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed 4,384 consecutive patients who underwent a screening mammography from January 2005 to July 2006; 391 of the 4,384 exams were classified as Bi-RADS category 0. After exclusions, 241 patients received subsequent sonogram. Ultrasonography was considered diagnostic when the Bi-RADS category was changed to 2, 4, or 5, and it was considered indeterminate (Bi-RADS 3) when the results indicated that the patients should return for a mammographic follow-up. The outcomes of these patients were assessed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 53.3 years (ranging from 35 to 81). Of the 241 patients, ultrasonography was considered diagnostic in 146 (60.6%) patients and indeterminate in 95 (39.4%) patients. In the diagnostic group, 111 out of 146 patients (70.2%) had a sonogram result of Bi-RADS category 2 after a 2-year follow-up without evidence of malignancy. Furthermore, 35 out of 146 patients (29.8%) had a suspicious sonogram with a result of Bi-RADS category 4. After a tissue sampling procedure, 10 patients were confirmed to have breast cancer, and 25 had benign histopathological features without any evidence of malignancy after a 2-year follow-up. The sensitivity of ultrasonography was 100%, specificity was 89.1%, and overall accuracy was 89.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the degree of resolution and its diagnostic performance, ultrasonography was determined to be an excellent method for the subsequent evaluation of Bi-RADS 0 mammograms.