DESIGN: This qualitative study employed an interpretive descriptive approach. Two trained researchers conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) using a semi-structured topic guide, which was developed based on literature review and behavioural theories. All IDIs and FGDs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers analysed the data independently using a thematic approach.
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Men working in a banking institution in Kuala Lumpur were recruited to the study. They were purposively sampled according to their ethnicity, job position, age and screening status in order to achieve maximal variation.
RESULTS: Eight IDIs and five FGDs were conducted (n=31) and six themes emerged from the analysis. (1) Young men did not consider screening as part of prevention and had low risk perception. (2) The younger generation was more receptive to health screening due to their exposure to health information through the internet. (3) Health screening was not a priority in young men except for those who were married. (4) Young men had limited income and would rather invest in health insurance than screening. (5) Young men tended to follow doctors' advice when it comes to screening and preferred doctors of the same gender and ethnicity. (6) Medical overuse was also raised where young men wanted more screening tests while doctors tended to promote unnecessary screening tests to them.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified important factors that influenced young men's screening behaviour. Health authorities should address young men's misperceptions, promote the importance of early detection and develop a reasonable health screening strategy for them. Appropriate measures must be put in place to reduce low value screening practices.
CASE REPORT: An 87-year-old male had a tumour nodule over the left parotid tail for about 20 years. Physical examinations revealed a 4.5 cm soft, non-tender and fixed mass. After the left parotidectomy, pathology confirmed the diagnosis of IDC arising within an intraparotid lymph node. The cystic component of the tumour was lined by single to multilayered ductal cells with micropapillary growth pattern. The solid part showed intraductal proliferation of neoplastic cells in solid, cribriform, micropapillary and Roman bridge-like structure. By immunohistochemistry (IHC), the tumour cells were positive for S-100, CK (AE1/AE3), mammaglobin, SOX10, and estrogen receptor (ER), with myoepithelial cell rimming highlighted by positive p63 and calponin IHC stains. The prognosis of this patient is excellent after complete excision.
DISCUSSION: The mechanism of salivary gland tumour arising in the intra-parotid gland LN was assumed to be related to salivary duct inclusion within the intraparotid gland LN which is a normal occurrence during embryology development. Although the terminology may raise some confusion about the relationship between IDC and conventional salivary duct carcinoma (SDA), they are different in immunophenotype and clinicopathologic features. IDC is characterised by S100 (+) ER (+) with predominant intraductal growth and excellent prognosis; while SDC features S100 (-) androgen receptor (+) with predominant invasive growth and aggressive behavior. Recent discovery of recurrent RET gene rearrangement in IDC but not SDC also supports that IDC is not precursor lesion of the SDC.
Materials and Methods: A total of 8,030 intraoral images were retrospectively collected from 3 groups of undergraduate clinical dental students. The type of examination, stage of the procedure, and reasons for repetition were analysed and recorded. The repeat rate was calculated as the total number of repeated images divided by the total number of examinations. The weighted Cohen's kappa for inter- and intra-observer agreement was used after calibration and prior to image analysis.
Results: The overall repeat rate on intraoral periapical images was 34.4%. A total of 1,978 repeated periapical images were from endodontic assessment, which included working length estimation (WLE), trial gutta-percha (tGP), obturation, and removal of gutta-percha (rGP). In the endodontic imaging, the highest repeat rate was from WLE (51.9%) followed by tGP (48.5%), obturation (42.2%), and rGP (35.6%). In bitewing images, the repeat rate was 15.1% and poor angulation was identified as the most common cause of error. A substantial level of intra- and interobserver agreement was achieved.
Conclusion: The repeat rates in this study were relatively high, especially for certain clinical procedures, warranting training in optimization techniques and radiation protection. Repeat analysis should be performed from time to time to enhance quality assurance and hence deliver high-quality health services to patients.