medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2024, Número 04

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2024; 92 (04)


Hallazgos mastográficos benignos que simulan malignidad: un dilema diagnóstico

Santiago SL, González-Sandoval DA, Meléndez OA, Rendón MME, Cisneros VSA

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 68
Paginas: 153-168
Archivo PDF: 451.73 Kb.


RESUMEN

Objetivo: Identificar los principales hallazgos histopatológicos benignos y determinar la tasa de falsos positivos que suelen causar conflicto al categorizar las mastografías en el sistema BI-RADS por su aspecto, que puede simular un proceso maligno.
Materiales y Métodos: Estudio de cohorte, retrospectivo, efectuado en pacientes atendidas en la Unidad Médica de Alta Especialidad 4 Luis Castelazo Ayala (2019-2023) con reporte mastográfico alterado o sospecha clínica de malignidad. Para el análisis estadístico se utilizó el programa JASP 2.0 y χ2 para la diferencia de proporciones entre grupos.
Resultados: De un grupo de 11,481 pacientes, se reportaron 1643 mastografías alteradas: 444 con reportes falsos positivos, 23 pacientes con sospecha clínica y exclusión de 16 que no cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión establecidos. La muestra poblacional estudiada fue de 451 pacientes. La mayoría permaneció asintomática al momento del estudio (42.1%). El hallazgo histopatológico benigno con mayor prevalencia fue el fibroadenoma y su síntoma más relevante el nódulo palpable. La tasa de falsos positivos fue de 4.3%.
Conclusiones: En la actualidad, gracias a la implementación de programas de tamizaje es posible establecer diagnósticos de cáncer de mama en etapas tempranas, aunque con la desventaja que el reporte puede resultar falso positivo y ello dar lugar a incremento de la morbilidad y sobretratamiento. Los estándares internacionales indican que estos no deben sobrepasar el 10%.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Wojtyla C, Bertuccio P, Ciebiera M, Vecchia C La. Breastcancer mortality in the americas and australasia overthe period 1980–2017 with predictions for 2025. Biology(Basel) 2021;10 (8): 1-14. http://doi.org/10.3390/biology10080814

  2. Houghton SC, Hankinson SE. Cancer progress and priorities:Breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2021; 30 (5): 822-44. http://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1193

  3. Zavala VA, Serrano-Gomez SJ, Dutil J, Fejerman L. Geneticepidemiology of breast cancer in Latin America. Genes (Basel)2019; 10 (2). http://doi.org/10.3390/genes10020153

  4. Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer asa global health concern. Br J Radiol 2022; 95 (1130): 7-9.http://doi.org/10.1259/BJR.20211033

  5. World Health Organization. Mexico Source: Globocan 2020.Int Agency Res Cancer WHO. 2020;929:1-2. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/484-mexicofact-sheets.pdf

  6. Cazap E. Breast Cancer in Latin America: A Map of theDisease in the Region. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ B 2018; (38):451-56. http://doi.org/10.1200/edbk_201315

  7. de Almeida LM, Cortés S, Vilensky M, et al. Socioeconomic,Clinical, and Molecular Features of Breast Cancer InfluenceOverall Survival of Latin American Women. FrontOncol 2022; 12 (March): 1-15. http://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.845527

  8. Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, et al. Current and futureburden of breast cancer: Global statistics for 2020and 2040. Breast 2022; 66 (August): 15-23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2022.08.010

  9. Arceo-Martínez MT, López-Meza JE, Ochoa-Zarzosa A,Palomera-Sanchez Z. Estado actual del cáncer de mamaen México: principales tipos y factores de riesgo. Gac MexOncol 2021; 20 (3): 101-10. http://doi.org/10.24875/j.gamo.21000134

  10. Doede AL, Mitchell EM, Wilson D, Panagides R, Oriá MOB.Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about breast cancerscreening in Latin America and the Caribbean: An in-depthnarrative review. J Glob Oncol 2018; 1 (4). http://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.18.00053

  11. Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, et al. Breast CancerScreening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women atAverage Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of BreastImaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2021; 18 (9): 1280-88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021

  12. Ho PJ, Bok CM, Mohd Ishak HM, et al. Factors associatedwith false-positive mammography at first screen in anAsian population. PLoS One 2019; 14 (3): 1-16. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213615

  13. Fatima K, Masroor I, Khanani S. Probably benign solidbreast lesions on ultrasound: Need for biopsy reassessed.Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2018; 19 (12): 3467-71. http://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2018.19.12.3467

  14. Miller BC, Bowers JM, Payne JB, Moyer A. Barriers tomammography screening among racial and ethnic minoritywomen. Soc Sci Med 2019; 239: 112494. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112494

  15. Solikhah S, Promthet S, Hurst C. Awareness level aboutbreast cancer risk factors, barriers, attitude and breastcancer screening among Indonesian women. Asian Pacific JCancer Prev 2019; 20 (3): 877-84. http://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.3.877

  16. Wang Y, Li Y, Song Y, et al. Comparison of ultrasound andmammography for early diagnosis of breast cancer amongChinese women with suspected breast lesions: A prospectivetrial. Thorac Cancer. 2022; 13 (22): 3145-51. http://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14666

  17. Honig EL, Mullen LA, Amir T, et al. Factors ImpactingFalse Positive Recall in Screening Mammography. AcadRadiol. 2019;26(11):1505-1512. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.01.020

  18. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT, et al. Digital mammographyversus digital mammography plus tomosynthesisin breast cancer screening: The Oslo tomosynthesisscreening trial. Radiology. 2019;291(1):23-30. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182394

  19. Lei S, Zheng R, Zhang S, et al. Global patterns of breastcancer incidence and mortality: A population-based cancerregistry data analysis from 2000 to 2020. Cancer Commun.

  20. 2021;41(11):1183-1194. http://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.1220720. El Hachem Z, Zoghbi M, Hallit S. Psychosocial consequencesof false-positive results in screening mammography. J FamMed Prim Care 2019; 8 (4): 19-25. http://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_4_17

  21. Seely JM, Alhassan T. Screening for breast cancer in2018 -what should we be doing today? Curr Oncol.2018;25(June):S115-S124. http://doi.org/10..3747/co.25.3770

  22. Løberg M, Lousdal ML, Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Benefitsand harms of mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res.2015;17(1):1-12. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-015-0525-z

  23. Castro M, Cobos MP, Saquis F, Luna G. Lesiones benignasde mama que pueden simular un carcinoma. Rev ArgentinaRadiol. 2011;75(1):27-32. http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/rar/v75n1/v75n1a07.pdf

  24. Kim G, Mercaldo S, Bahl M. Impact of digital breast tomosynthesis(DBT) on finding types leading to true-positiveand false-positive examinations. Clin Imaging. 2021;71:155-59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.10.046

  25. Lee J, Arao R, Sprague B. Performance of screening ultrasonographyas an adjunct to screening mammography inwomen across the spectrum of breast cancer risk. JAMAIntern Med 2019; 179 (5): 658-68. http://doi.org/10.1001/ja mainternmed.2018.8372

  26. Parada-Gallardo A, Preciado-Vargas J, Amezcua-GalvezJE, Juarez-Lopez GE. Benign breast lesions mimickingmalignancy: a pictorial essay. J Mex Fed Radiol Imaging.2022;1(4):247-58. http://doi.org/10.24875/jmexfri.m22000034

  27. Iglesias A, Arias M, Santiago P, Rodríguez M, Mañas J, SaboridoC. Benign Breast Lesions that Simulate Malignancy:Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Radiologic-PathologicCorrelation. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2007;36(2):66-82.http://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2006.12.001

  28. Kashyap D, Pal D, Sharma R, et al. Global Increase inBreast Cancer Incidence: Risk Factors and PreventiveMeasures. Biomed Res Int 2022; 2022. http://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9605439

  29. Sun YS, Zhao Z, Yang ZN, et al. Risk factors and preventionsof breast cancer. Int J Biol Sci 2017; 13 (11): 1387-97. http://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.21635

  30. Subramani R, Lakshmanaswamy R. Pregnancy andBreast Cancer. Vol 151. Elsevier Inc.; 2017. http://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2017.07.006

  31. Migliavacca Zucchetti B, Peccatori FA, Codacci-PisanelliG. Pregnancy and lactation: Risk or protective factors forbreast cancer? Adv Exp Med Biol 2020; 1252: 195-97.http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41596-9_27

  32. Isabel R, Piza S, Morales BJ, Sierra López S, Salgado JiménezM de los Á, Rodríguez Echeverría G. Características epidemiológicas,radiológicas e histológicas de cáncer de mamaen usuarias de un hospital general regional en Guerrero,México. México Aten Fam 2022; 29 (1): 20-24. http://doi.org/10.22201/fm.14058871p.2022.1.81186

  33. Barzaman K, Karami J, Zarei Z, et al. Breast cancer: Biology,biomarkers, and treatments. Int Immunopharmacol 2020;84. (http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106535

  34. Hubbard TJE, Sharma A, Ferguson DJ. Breast pain: Assessment,management, and referral criteria. Br J GenPract 2020; 70 (697): 419-420. http://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X712133

  35. Adni LLA, Norhayati MN, Rosli RRM, Muhammad J. Asystematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy ofevening primrose oil for mastalgia treatment. Int J EnvironRes Public Health. 2021;18(12). http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126295

  36. Dave R V., Bromley H, Taxiarchi VP, et al. No association betweenbreast pain and breast cancer: a prospective cohortstudy of 10 830 symptomatic women presenting to a breastcancer diagnostic clinic. Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72(717):E234-E243. http://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2021.0475

  37. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-riskwomen. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(122):1-16.

  38. Helvie MA, Bevers TB. Screening mammography foraverage-risk women: The controversy and NCCN’s position.JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16(11):1398-1404.http://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.7081

  39. Martin K, Vogel RI, Nagler RH, et al. Mammography ScreeningPractices in Average-Risk Women Aged 40-49 Years inPrimary Care: A Comparison of Physician and NonphysicianProviders in Minnesota. J Women’s Heal. 2020;29(1):91-99.http://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7436

  40. Lanta Q, Arveux P, Asselain B. Epidemiology and socioculturalspecificities of young women with breast cancer.Bull Cancer. 2019;106(12):S4-S9. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-4551(20)30041-2

  41. Amir T, Hogan MP, Jacobs S, Sevilimedu V, Sung J, Jochelson MS.Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings onContrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography. Am J Roentgenol.2022;218(5):797-808. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.21.26847

  42. Taskin F, Durum Y, Soyder A, Unsal A. Review and managementof breast lesions detected with breast tomosynthesisbut not visible on mammography and ultrasonography.Acta radiol. 2017;58(12):1442-1447. http://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117710681

  43. Martaindale S. Breast cancer screening: Helping patientsnavigate recommendations. Breast J. 2021;27(5):421-422.http://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.14236

  44. García-Luna KJ, Ocampo-Ramírez JD, Pardo-Bustamante Mdel P, Ruiz-Villa CA, Castaño-Vélez AP. Criterios, métodosy guías de análisis y evaluación para el control de calidadde la imagen y lectura de la mamografía: una revisiónmeta-narrativa. Rev An Radiol México. 2019;18(2):108-118.http://doi.org/10.24875/arm.19000125

  45. Mann RM, Hooley R, Barr RG, Moy L. Novel approaches toscreening for breast cancer. Radiology. 2020;297(2):266-285. http://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2020200172

  46. Jatoi I, Pinsky PF. Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpointsand Overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(9):1131-1135. http://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa140

  47. Brewer N, Salz T, Lillie S. Systematic Review: The Long-TermEffects of False-Positive Mammograms. Ann Intern Med.2007;146(1):350-358.

  48. Uscanga-Sánchez S, Torres-Mejía G, Ángeles-Llerenas A,Domínguez-Malpica R, Lazcano-Ponce E. Indicadores delproceso de tamizaje de cáncer de mama en México: unestudio de caso. Salud Publica Mex. 2014;56(5):528-537.http://doi.org/10.21149/spm.v56i5.7378

  49. Maes-Carballo M, Gómez-Fandiño Y, Reinoso-Hermida A,et al. Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematicreview. Breast. 2021;59:221-231. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.06.013

  50. Rauscher G, Murphy AM, Orsi J, Dupuy D, Grabler P,Weldon C. Beyond MQSA: Measuring the quality ofbreast cancer screening programs. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2014;202(1):145-151. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10806.Beyond

  51. Dabbous F, Dolecek T, Berbaum M, et al. Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent ScreeningBehavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis. CancerEpidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(3):397-403. http://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965

  52. Castro-Ibarra M, Menchaca-Díaz R, Jesús Cabrales-Ruvalcaba J, Rosa RA. Resultado falso positivo en lamamografía y su asociación con la presencia de obesidad:Un estudio de casos y controles. Gac Med Mex.2016;152(4):503-507.

  53. Kim HE, Kim HH, Han BK, et al. Changes in cancer detectionand false-positive recall in mammography using artificialintelligence: a retrospective, multireader study. LancetDigit Heal. 2020;2(3):e138-e148. http://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30003-0

  54. Ventura-Alfaro CE. Errores de medición en la interpretaciónmamográfica por radiólogos. Rev Salud Publica.2018;20(4):518-522. http://doi.org/10.15446/rsap.V20n4.52035

  55. Mello-Thoms C, Dunn SM, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. Ananalysis of perceptual errors in reading mammogramsusing quasi-local spatial frequency spectra. J Digit Imaging.2001;14(3):117-123. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-001-0010-3

  56. Lamb LR, Fonseca MM, Verma R, Seely JM. Missed breastcancer: Effects of subconscious bias and lesion characteristics.Radiographics. 2020;40(4):941-960. http://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2020190090

  57. Sánchez JC, Rocha JEB, Piña VB, et al. Consenso Mexicanosobre diagnóstico y tratamiento del cancer mamario.Gac Mex Oncol 2017;16(Supl 3):7-78. http://doi.org/10.24875/j.gamo.m21000213

  58. Guirguis MS, Adrada B, Santiago L, Candelaria R, ArribasE. Mimickers of breast malignancy: imaging findings,pathologic concordance and clinical management. InsightsImaging 2021; 12 (1). http://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00991-x

  59. Santiago-Sanabria L, Garza-Arrieta J, Tesone-Lasman JE,Benardete-Harari DN, Cortés-Rubio JL. Mastitis granulomatosa:una simuladora de cáncer, un gran reto diagnósticoy terapéutico. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2022; 90 (5): 448-55.http://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v90i5.6954

  60. Cho SH, Park SH. Mimickers of breast malignancy on breastsonography. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32 (11): 2029-36.http://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.32.11.2029

  61. Chan HHL, Lam TPW, Yuen JHF, Leong LLY. Conditions thatmimic primary breast carcinoma on mammography andsonography. J Hong Kong Coll Radiol 2004; 7 (1): 49-55.

  62. Santiago-Sanabria L, López-Valle MÁ, Garza-Arrieta J,Islas-Tezpa D. Tumor filodes bilateral, una rara forma demanifestación clínica: reporte de caso. Ginecol ObstetMex 2022; 90 (11): 933-41. http://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v90i11.6977

  63. Spruill L. Benign mimickers of malignant breast lesions.Semin Diagn Pathol 2016; 33 (1): 2-12. http://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2015.09.002

  64. Pojchamarnwiputh S, Muttarak M, Na-ChiangMai W,Chaiwun B. Benign breast lesions mimicking carcinoma atmammography. Singapore Med J 2007; 48 (10). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17909685/

  65. Urano M, Nishikawa H, Goto T, et al. Digital mammographicfeatures of breast cancer recurrences and benign lesionsmimicking malignancy following breast-conserving surgeryand radiation therapy. Kurume Med J 2018; 65 (4): 113-21.http://doi.org/10.2739/kurumemedj.MS654005

  66. Torous VF, Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Benign breast lesions thatmimic malignancy. Pathology 2017; 49 (2): 181-96. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2016.12.002

  67. Cohen MA, Newell MS. Radial scars of the breastencountered at core biopsy: Review of histologic,imaging, and management considerations. Am J Roentgenol2017; 209 (5): 1168-77. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18156

  68. Ferre R, Kuzmiak CM. Radial Scar: what the radiologistneeds to know in 2021. Arch Breast Cancer 2022; 9 (1):4-9. http://doi.org/10.32768/abc.2022914-9




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com