Mammography and ultrasound evaluation of palpable breast lesion with histopathological correlation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20242941Keywords:
FNAC, Sonomammography, Mammography, Breast lesionsAbstract
Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers and the leading cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide. Histological examination enables us to confirm the findings of mammography and sonography of the breast. Although a definitive diagnosis is possible with imaging features, histopathology and cytology are generally performed for obtaining a confirmed diagnosis. Aim of the study was to evaluate the breast lesions according to BI- RADS by using two different radiological procedures (non-invasive method) with correlation of FNAC.
Methods: This hospital-based prospective study was conducted in RNTMC Udaipur. All patients were subjected to digital mammography on HOLOGIC M-IV mammography machine in which two imaging projections of each breast, craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views were taken.
Results: On mammography, out of 90, 80 had palpable masses and 10 occult. Ultrasound was able to detect 88 cases and was normal in 2. Out of 88 lesions detected on sonomammography, 58 were solid and the rest were cystic or predominantly cystic lesions. Majority masses were located in the upper outer quadrant of bilateral breasts (41 masses), followed by the retro-areolar region (15 masses) and the upper inner and lower outer quadrant (10 masses) each. In upper outer quadrant 22(53.6%) out of 41 of the masses were benign while the remaining were malignant 19 (46%).
Conclusions: We conclude that with the combination of two noninvasive procedures, mammography and ultrasound; we can almost achieve the accuracy of the FNAC (invasive procedure) in detecting breast malignancy.
References
Abdullah P, Malik A, Zahir N, Zahur-ur-Rehman Abdus S, Mehmood A. Breast lumps-what they actually represent. J College Physicians Surgeons Pakistan. 1999;9:46-8.
Consolidated Report of Hospital Based Cancer Registries 2007-2011. National Cancer Registry Programme, ICMR, 2013.
Asthana S, Chauhan S, Labani S. Breast and cervical cancer risk in India: anypdate. Indian J Public Health. 2014;58:5-10.
Mohammad H. Breast cancer and cervical cancer in
countries between 1980 and 2010: a systemicanalysis. The Lancet. 2011;8:193-341.
National Cancer Registry Programme Consolidated report of the population-based cancer registries 1990–1996. Indian Council of Medical Research 2001.
Breast cancer, India. Breast cancer India; 2014: Available at http://www.breastcancerindia.net. Accessed on 14 July 2023.
Popli M. Ultrasound characterization of breast masses. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19: 242-7.
Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH, et al. Swedish two country trial: impact ofmammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260(3):653-63.
Barton MB, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: frequency, evaluation and outcome. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130: 651-79.
Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BIRADS Categorization as a Predictor Malignancy. Radiology. 1999;211:845-50.
Jha AK, Sah RG. Accuracy of USG in stratifying palpable breast lesions: correlative study using fine needle aspiration for cytology. Original Int J Sci. 2015; 2(1):9-15.
Gokhale S. Ultrasound characterization of breast masses. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19(3):242-7.
Phurailatpam J, Sakalecha A, Prasad CSBR, Kumar BNK, Hegde P. Evaluation of mammography, sonomammography in correlation with fine needle aspiration of breast lumps. JMSCR 2014;2(5):990- 1005.
Sabine M, Susanne W, Achim S. Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res. 2001;3(1)55-80.
Mujagić S, Burina M, Mustedanagić-Mujanović J, Šarkanović G. The importance of combining of ultrasound and mammography in breast cancer diagnosis. Acta Medica Academica. 2011;40:27-33.
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830-49.
Brem RF, Tabár L, Duffy SW, Inciardi MF, Guingrich JA, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology. 2015;274(3):663-73.
Abhinaya KSL. Evaluation of breast lesions with Ultrasonography and Mammography in Correlation with FNAC/HPE. J Dental Med Sci. 2020;19(7):46- 55.
Yamakanamardi S, Hiremath BV. Accuracy of mammography and sonomammography and its correlation with histopathology in the detection of breast cancer. Int Surg J. 2021;8:624-30.
Akinnibosun-Raji HO, Saidu SA, Mustapha Z, Ma'aji SM, Umar M, Kabir FU, et al. Correlation of Sonographic Findings and Histopathological Diagnoses in Women Presenting with Breast Masses. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2022;12(2):109-14.
Marri RK, Palleboina S. Evaluation of breast lumps by ultrasound and its correlation with FNAC findings in a teaching hospital in Telangana. J Evidence Based Med Healthcare. 2015;7(47):2772- 6.
Babu S, Sainudeen A, Eksana A. Retrospective analysis of mammogram, sonomammogram and its histopathological correlation as an aid for diagnosis of breast lesions. Int J Sci Res. 2021;10(1):4-7.
Runjjala K, Naidu YT. Combined Mammographic and Sonomammographic Evaluation of Breast Masses. Int J Contemp Med Surg Radiol. 2020;5(1):162-5.
