Role of sonomammography and its diagnostic accuracy for evaluating benign and malignant breast lesions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20211884Keywords:
BI-RADS, Breast cancer, Histopathological, Mammography, Sensitivity, Specificity, UltrasonographyAbstract
Background: Mammography and ultrasound are the best-known techniques used for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. This study evaluated the accuracy of sonomammography in diagnosing breast lesions, both benign and malignant separately and confirmation of the findings by histopathology.
Methods: A prospective study was conducted for 18 months in women aged above 15 years with breast lesions or symptoms of breast diseases. The diagnosis protocol consisted of clinical breast examination, mammography, ultrasound and histopathological examination. Mammograms were interpreted according to the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) diagnostic categories on a five-point scale. This was followed by ultrasound imaging of the breast and axilla with ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (sonomammography-FNAC) from the breast lump.
Results: Among the 52 patients, three patients were divorced, 40 were married and nine were unmarried. Eight had a history of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) use and one patient had a family history of breast lesions. The mammography report revealed 31 patients suspected to be malignant and 21 patients to be benign. According to the sonomammography report, 32 patients were suspected to be malignant while 20 patients were suspected to be benign. Correlation between mammography report, sonomammography report and grade versus histopathological finding also showed significance with p<0.0001.
Conclusions: Sonomammography reveals good sensitivity and specificity for detecting all breast lesions. Hence it can be considered as a suitable means of investigation than mammography especially in patients less than 40 years of age.
Metrics
References
Latest global cancer data: Cancer burden rises to 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million cancer deaths in 2018.WHO, IARC. Available from: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pr263_E.pdf. Accessed on 22 February 2021.
Breast-Global cancer observatory. Available from: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/20-Breast-fact-sheet.pdf. Accessed on 22 February 2021.
Pruthi S. Detection and evaluation of a palpable breast mass. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76(6):641-7.
Kopans DB. Breast Imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Raven Publishers; 1998:409-428.
Gupta P, Chatterjee S, Sharma V, Singh K, Gupta D. Efficacy of x ray mammography, sonomammography and MR mammography for evaluation of breast lesions in women. Indian J Appl Res. 2017;7(3):26-30.
Kelly KM. Sonographic evaluation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Crit Rev Diagn Imag. 1996;37(2):79-161.
Kopans DB. Digital Breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR. 2014;202:299-308.
Somdatta P, Baridalyne N. Awareness of breast cancer in women of an urban resettlement colony. Indian J Cancer. 2008;45:149-53.
Raina V, Bhutani M, Bedi R, Sharma A, Deo SV, Shukla NK, et al. Clinical features and prognostic factors of early breast cancer at a major cancer center in North India. Indian J Cancer. 2005;42(1):40.
Ramirez AJ, Westcombe AM, Burgess CC, Sutton S, Littlejohns P, Richards MA. Factors predicting delayed presentation of symptomatic breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet. 1999;353:1127-31.
Rivera-Franco MM, Leon-Rodriguez E. Delays in breast cancer detection and treatment in developing countries. Breast Cancer. 2018;12:1-5.
Mainiero MB, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, Livingston L. Characterisation of breast masses with sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:161-7.
Devolli-Disha E, Manxhuka-Kërliu S, Ymeri H, Kutllovci A. Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2009;9(2):131-6.
Chandak N, Dhande R. Evaluation of breast masses by sonomammography and x ray mammography in correlation with histopathological findings. Int J Rec Surg Med Sci. 2017;3:3-6.
Jakubowski W, Dobruch-Sobczak K, Migda B. standards of the Polish Ultrasound Society- update. Sonomammography examination. J Ultrasonogr. 2012;12(50):245-61.
Badu-Peprah A, Adu-Sarkodie Y. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis, mammography and ultrasonography in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Ghana Med J. 2018;52(3):133-9.
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830-49.
Butler RS, Venta LA, Wiley EL, Ellis RL, Dempsey PJ, Rubin E. Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(2):325-30.
Dixon JM, Mansel RE. Symptoms, assessment, and guidelines for referral. In: Dixon J.M., ed. ABC of breast diseases, 2nd ed. London: BMJ; 2003:3-7.
Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Heikkinen P, Hyvärinen S, Isola J, et al. The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;67(2):117-23.
Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196(1):123-34.
Beerappa J, Balu S, Nandan Kumar LD, Kapali A, Raghuram P. Mammographic and sonomammographic evaluation of breast masses with pathological correlation: A prospective original study. Int J Anat Radiol Surg. 2016;5: RO09-12.
Gonzaga MA. How accurate is ultrasound in evaluating palpable breast masses? Pan Afr Med J. 2010;7:1-6.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
