medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Hospital Angeles Health System

2007, Number 2

Next >>

Acta Med 2007; 5 (2)

Usefulness of radiological studies for the diagnostic accuracy of breast diseases

Cuevas GJE, Ayala GF, Ocampo LCR, Trejo SG

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 59-63
PDF size: 81.13 Kb.


ABSTRACT

This work carry the clinic, mammography, sonographic and fine needle aspiration biopsy guided by ultrasonography certainty diagnostic in 300 women between 40-80 years old with suspect breast lesions. The most frequent age group were between 40-49 years with 156 patients (52%), continued by the 50-59 years old group with 99 patients (33%). Fibrocystic condition was diagnosticated by clinic symptoms in 204 patients ( 68%) and climacteric in 65 patients (21.6%). There were 222 biopsy results positive for malignancy (74%) with 50 inadequate samples (16.6%). The mastographic sensitivity was of 96%, with specificity of 74%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 87% and negative predictive value of 93%; the sonographic sensitivity was of 84%, specificity of 76%, PPV of 94% and NPV of 48%; the clinic sensitivity was of 80%, with specificity of 26%, PPV of 5.4% and NPV of 96%. Our results, (except by the clinical results), are accord with world-wide reports, situation who require to improve, besides of our biopsy technique and the Interaction between different breast diseases attention services in our Hospital.


REFERENCES

  1. Richard C, Robert S, Diane H. Cancer screening primary care. Clinics in Office Practice 2002; 29(3).

  2. Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M. Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52: 23-47.

  3. American Cancer Society Guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: UPDATE 1997 CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 1997; 47(3).

  4. Mortality statistics in Mexico: deaths registered in the year 2000. Salud Pública Mex 2002; 44(3): 266-282.

  5. Bonilla-Fernández P. Nutritional factors and breast cancer in Mexico. Nutr Cancer 2003; 45(2): 148-155.

  6. Rodriguez-Cuevas S, Macias-Martinez C, Labastida-Almendaro S. Breast cancer in Mexico. Is it a young women disease? Ginecol Obstet Mex 2000; 68: 185-190.

  7. Layfield LJ, Parkinsn B, WongJ et al. Mammographically guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of non palpable breast lesions. Cancer 1991; 68: 2007-2011.

  8. Kopans DB, Meyer JE, Cohen AM, Wood WC. Palpable breast masses: the importance of preoperative mammography. JAMA 1981; 246: 2819-2822.

  9. Fornage BD, Fariux MJ, Simatos A. Breast masses: US guided fine needle aspiration biopsy. Radiology 1987; 162; 409-414.

  10. Non palpable breast lesions: biopsy methods and patient management. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics 2002; 29(1).

  11. Hermansen C, Poulsen HS, Jensen J et al. Diagnostic reliability of combined physical examination, mammography and fine needle puncture ( «triple-test») in breast tumor. Cancer 1987; 60: 1866-1871.

  12. Satake H, Shimamoto K, Sawaki A et al. Role of ultrasonography in the detection of intraductal spread of breast cancer correlation with pathologic findings, mammography and MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2000; 10: 1726-1732.

  13. Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB et al. Breast cancer measurement with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996; 37: 1-9.

  14. Kopans DB. La mama en imagen. Marban Madrid España 2003.

  15. Thomas DB, Dao Lg, Self SG et al. Randomized trial of Breast Self-examination in Shangai: methodology and preliminary results. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 335-365.

  16. Faulk AM, Sckles EA. Efficacy of spot compression-magnification and tangential views in mammographic evaluation of palpable masses. Radiology 1992; 185: 87-90.

  17. Dershaw DD. Mammography in patients with breast cancer treated by breast conservation (lumpectomy with or without radiation). AJR 1995; 164: 309-316.

  18. Kopans DB. The accuracy of mammographic interpretation. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1521-1522.

  19. Feig SA. Current status of screening mammography. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2002; 29: 1.

  20. 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: 123-134.

  21. Berg WA, Fajardo LL, Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, McNeil BJ. Correlation of sonographic findings with risk of malignancy: the RDOGV experience [abstract]. Radiology 1999; 213(P): 107.

  22. Ancona CN, Martínez De L. La biopsia por aspiración con aguja fina en glándula mamaria: Diagnóstico citológico y concordancia histológica y clínica. Rev Hosp M Gea Glz 2002; 5(3-4): 79-84.

  23. Frable WJ. Needle aspiration of the breast. Cancer 1984; 53(3 Suppl): 671-676.

  24. Borrego L, Rodríguez P, Peña C, Vasallo P, Pérez M. Valor de la biopsia aspirativa con aguja fina en el diagnóstico de las afecciones de las mamas. Rev Cubana Obstet Ginecol 1997; 23(2-3): 81-85.

  25. Schwartz GF, Goldberg BB, Rifkin MD, D’Orazio SE. Ultrasonography an alternative to X-ray-guided needle localization of nonpalpable breast masses. Surgery 1998; 104: 870-873.

  26. Lechner M, Day D, Kusnick C et al. Ultrasound visibility of a new breast biopsy marker on serial evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225(suppl): 115.

  27. Liberman L, Menell J. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiologic Clinics of North America 2002; 40(3).

  28. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman J, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 35-40.

  29. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999; 211: 845-50.

  30. Kopans DB. The predictive positive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158: 521-526.

  31. Baker LH. Breast cancer detection demonstration project: five-year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 1982; 32: 194-225.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com