Mammographic and Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Palpable Abnormalities of the Breast
Keywords:
Mammography, Ultrasonography, Palpable abnormalities, BreastAbstract
Introduction: The mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (USG) are individually effective diagnostic modalities for palpable abnormalities of the breast. This study was carried out with a aim to evaluate breast lesions using mammography and ultrasonography independently and in combination with FNAC correlation.
Methods: This cross-sectional hospital-based study was carried out at department of Radio diagnosis in a tertiary care hospital of West Bengal. Study participants were all women with palpable and non palpable breast lesions detected on clinical examination/self breast examination and referred for mammography and women in high risk groups
Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) & negative predictive value (NPV) of mammography in detecting carcinoma breast were 77.8%, 97.7%, 87.5% and 95.6% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV& NPV of USG in detecting carcinoma breast were 55.6%, 97.7%, 83.3% and 91.5% respectively. In our study population 83.0% breast lesion were benign and out of them 77.27% were diagnosed by mammography alone and 72.7% were diagnosed by USG alone. When these modalities were combined, 97.7% of the lesions were diagnosed.
Conclusion: This study confirms mammography and ultrasonography when combined have significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive value in detecting the palpable abnormalities of the breast.
References
Clarke D, Sudhakaran N, Gateley CA. Replace fine needle aspiration cytology with automated core biopsy in the tri-ple assessment of breast cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001; 83:110–2.
Schoonjans JM, Brem RF. Fourteen-gauge ultrasonograph-ically guided large-core needle biopsy of breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20:967–72
Annual report, 1984. National cancer registry. A project of Indian council of medical research, New Delhi .
National cancer registry programme, Biennial report 1988-1989, An epidemiological study, Indian council of medical research, New Delhi.
American Cancer Society. Statistics for 2009. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/STT_0.asp.
Ciatto S, Cataliotti L, Distante V. Nonpalpable lesions de-tected with mammography: review of 512 consecutive cas-es. Radiology 1987; 165: 99 - 102.
Kopans DB. Positive predictive value of mammography; AJR 1992; 158: 521 - 526.
Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast can-cer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preven-tive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(5 part 1):347-360
Morris KT, Vetto JT, Petty JK, Lum SS, Schmidt WA, Toth-Fejel S, et al. A new score for the evaluation of palpable breast masses in women under age 40. Am J Surg 2002; 184:346–7
Wendie A. Berg, Lorena Gutierrez, Moriel S. Ness Aiver, W. Bradford Carter, Mythreyi Bhargavan, Rebecca S. Lewis, and Olga B. Ioff . Diagnostic Accuracy of mammography, Clinical Examination, US, and MR Imaging in Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer; Radiology 2004; 233(3):830-49
Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, O'Laoide R, Hourihan JB, O'Higgins NJ. Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer ; Cline Radiol 1994; 49: 123 – 125
Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Ljung BM, Grady D. Ann Intern. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Intern Med. 2003 ; 139(4): 274–84.
Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen film vs full-field digital mam-mography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions Eur Radiol 2002;12:1697–702.
Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Ka-rellas A, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammogra-phy with screen film mammography for cancer detection: Radiology 2001; 218:873–80.
Moss HA, Britton PD, Flower CD, Freeman AH,Lomas DJ,Warren RM . How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population. Cline Radiol 1999;54:676-82.
Shetty MK, Shah YP, Sharman RS. Prospective evaluation of the value of combined mammographic and sonographic as-sessment in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22:263–8.
Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, Ballard-Bardash R, Yankaskas BC , Cutter GR, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer . J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:1151-9.
Georgian-Smith D, Taylor KJ, Madjar H, Goldberg B, Merritt CR, Bokobsa J et al . Sonography of palpable breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2003 19; 139(4):274-84.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors retain the copyright of their article, with first publication rights granted to Medsci Publications.
