COMPARISON OF MAMMOGRAPHY AND ULTRASOUND COMBINED VERSUS ULTRASOUND ALONE IN EARLY EVALUATION OF SYMPTOMATIC BREAST CANCERS IN PAKISTAN
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to detect diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasound combined versus ultrasound alone in early evaluation of symptomatic breast lesions.
Materials and Methods: All new patients who presented to the breast clinic with symptomatic breast lesions, during the year 2012, were included in the study. A total of 695 patients were registered. Their clinical findings, mammogram, ultrasound and histopathology were reviewed.
Results: Mammogram and ultrasound combined detected 693 (99.71%) lesions in total. Mammogram failed to detect lesions in 1.43% of patients, whereas the failure rate of ultrasound was 0.43%. The incidence of microcalcifications on mammogram was 19.13%.
Conclusion: Ultrasound is a useful tool in the initial evaluation of symptomatic breasts. For places such as Pakistan where mammogram is not available at every centre, ultrasound can be used as an effective alternative for the assessment of symptomatic breast lesions.
Key words: Breast cancer, mammography, ultrasound
References
Elsie KM, Gonzaga MA, Francis B, et al. Current knowledge, attitudes and practices of women on breast cancer and mammography at mulago hospital. Pan Afr Med J 2010;5:9.
Sohail S, Alam SN. Breast cancer in Pakistan awareness and early detection. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2007;17:711-2.
Sariego J. Breast cancer in the young patient. Am Surg 2010;76:1397-400.
Badar F, Faruqui ZS, Uddin N, et al. Management of breast lesions by breast physicians in a heavily populated South Asian developing country. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011;12:827-32.
Badar F, Faruqui ZS, Ashraf A, et al. Third world issues in breast cancer detection. J Pak Med Assoc 2007;57:137-40.
Karellas A, Vedantham S. Breast cancer imaging: A perspective for the next decade. Med Phys 2008;35:4878-97.
Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, et al. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: Interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385-91.
Prasad SN, Houserkova D. A comparison of mammography and ultrasonography in the evaluation of breast masses. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2007;151:315-22.
American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
Morris KT, Vetto JT, Petty JK, et al. A new score for the evaluation of palpable breast masses in women under age 40. Am J Surg 2002;184:346-7.
Naeem M, Khan N, Aman Z, et al. Pattern of breast cancer: Experience at lady reading hospital, Peshawar. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2008;20:22-5.
Asif HM, Sultana S, Akhtar N, et al. Prevalence, risk factors
and disease knowledge of breast cancer in Pakistan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:4411-6.
Gilani GM, Kamal S, Akhter AS. A differential study of breast cancer patients in Punjab, Pakistan. J Pak Med Assoc 2003;53:478-81.
Houssami N, Turner RM. Staging the axilla in women with breast cancer: The utility of preoperative ultrasound-guided needle biopsy. Cancer Biol Med 2014;11:69-77.
Osako T, Iwase T, Takahashi K, et al. Diagnostic mammography and ultrasonography for palpable and nonpalpable breast cancer in women aged 30 to 39 years. Breast Cancer 2007;14:255-9.
Gonzaga MA. How accurate is ultrasound in evaluating palpable breast masses? Pan Afr Med J 2010;7:1.
McCavert M, O’Donnell ME, Aroori S, et al. Ultrasound is a useful adjunct to mammography in the assessment of breast tumours in all patients. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:1589-94.
Moss HA, Britton PD, Flower CD, et al. How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population? Clin Radiol 1999;54:676-82.
Devolli-Disha E, Manxhuka-Kërliu S, Ymeri H, et al. Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2009;9:131-6.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-75.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-63.
Berg WA. Beyond standard mammographic screening: Mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:895-906, 7.
Booi RC, Carson PL, O’Donnell M, et al. Characterization of cysts using differential correlation coefficient values from two dimensional breast elastography: Preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008;34:12-21.
Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: Prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007;244:381-8.
Moon WK, Im JG, Koh YH, et al. US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications. Radiology 2000;217:849-54.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Cancer & Allied Specialties (JCAS) right-of-first publication. In addition, the work will be simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. This license allows others to share the work in whole or part (for non-commercial purpose), with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in JCAS.
Furthermore, authors are free to enter into separate contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to share their work online or in medical or scientific conferences prior to or during submission process.
