medigraphic.com

2010, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Anales de Radiología México 2010; 9 (3)

Mastographic and ultrasonographic characteristics of Category 3 findings of ACR BI-RADS and pathological report

Círigo VLL, Becerra AGI, Ramos MF, Panzi ARM, Robledo MH, Vázquez CJ, Zermeño MCC

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 117-122
PDF size: 205.47 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this study is to discover the features by imaging of 3 ACR BI-RADS category 3 findings and histopathological report thereof.
Materials and method: from 2,281 patients who undergoing mastography diagnostic from January to December 2006, 552 were ACR BI-RADs category 3; 332 files were located.
Results: We found category 3 in 26% of mastographies diagnosed performed - Mastography findings were: 71% nodules, 15 % micro calcifications and 19% focal asymmetries. 80.8% was complemented by breast ultrasound. Diagnostic biopsy was performed on 16.9% of the cases, finding malignancy in 1.12%. Malignant histopathological diagnostics were shown in patients with solid nodules or asymmetrical density and personal history of breast cancer.
Conclusions: Malignant diagnostics were found in patients with personal history of breast cancer, so in these patients closer monitoring is recommended. Mastography findings should be regarded with greater force than the ultrasonographics, in order to grant final categorization. Diagnostic mastography supported by breast ultrasound improves diagnostic, accuracy in solid nodules and dense breasts.


REFERENCES

  1. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS mammography. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas, 4th ed. Reston, VA. American College of Radiology, 2003.

  2. NOM-041-ssa2 Para la Prevención, Diagnóstico, Tratamiento, Control y Vigilancia Epidemiológica del Cáncer de Mama, Septiembre, 2003.

  3. BI-RADS. Sistema de Informes y Registro de Datos de Imagen de Mama. Atlas de diagnóstico por imagen de la mama: mamografía, ecografía, resonancia magnética. 1ª ed, SERAM, 2006.

  4. Ortiz MC, Garcia F, Dies SP. El informe radiológico según el sistema BI RADS. Anales de Radiología México 2002; 4: 573-576.

  5. Ikeda D. Radiología de mama. Los requisitos en Radiología. Madrid: Elsevier Mosby, 2005;p: 288, 290, 292.

  6. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179: 463-468.

  7. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, et al. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 691-695.

  8. Márquez MA, Uribe JR. Seguimiento mamográfico de pacientes categorizadas BI RADS 3. Rev Venez Oncol 2008; 20(2): 71-77.

  9. Horvath E, Cifras P, Traipe E. Ultrasonido en cáncer mamario. II Jornada Chilena de Consenso Cáncer de Mama, Viña, 2003.

  10. Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Sandreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 Nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219: 475-483.

  11. Stavros. Ecografía de mama. Madrid: Marban, 2006; p: 445-481.

  12. Kopans DB (ed). La mama en imagen. 3ª ed. Madrid: Marban, 2004; p: 332, 370-373.

  13. Homer MJ, Smith TJ. Asymetric breast tissue. Radiology 1989; 173: 577-578.

  14. Sickles EA. p is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999; 213: 11-14.

  15. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002; 223: 221-228.

  16. Cardenosa G. Imagenología mamaria. 1ª ed. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Journal, 2005.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com