Arruel CLI, Marroquín TVM, Saucedo MEM, Torre IM, Rodríguez RMP

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 251-256
PDF size: 187.23 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In México, breast cancer is diagnosed on average at 53 years of age, which represents almost a decade less compared to other countries. Clinical studies have shown that mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 24%. Material and methods: A retrospective study of concordance between diagnostic mammography and biopsy with thick-cut needle assisted by suction was performed. Results: 870 cases were analyzed between 2005 and 2015; all patients evaluated had a BIRADS (Breast Imaging Report and Database System) 4 or 5 report, or clinical suspicion, cancer phobia or desire of the patient. We observed a sensivity 0.99, specificity 0.24, PPV 0.28, NPV 0.98 and accuracy 0.42, being much more accurate when dealing whit BIRADS 4C and 5 lesions, whose values were significantly better. Conclusions: The results that reported in this study show that diagnostic mammography has a high correlation with the histopathological result.

REFERENCES

1. Lazcano E, Escudero P, Uscanga S. Cáncer de mama, diagnóstico, tratamiento, prevención y control. México: Ediciones ciencia; 2014.

2. Cárdenas SJ, Bargalló RJ, Bautista PV, Cervantes SG, Erazo VS, Fores BC et al. Consenso Mexicano sobrediagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer mamario. Gaceta Mexicana de Oncología. 2015; 14 (Supl 2): 2-55.

3. Rodríguez CS, Guisa HF, Labastida AS, Espejo FR, Capurso GM, Ruvalcaba LE et al. Resultados del primer programa de detección oportuna de cáncer de mama en México mediante pesquisa con mastografía. GAMO. 2009; 8 (3): 83-96.

4. Masroor I, Rasool M, Afzal SS, Sohail S. To asses inter-and intra-observer variability for breast density and BIRADS assessment categories in mammographic reporting. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016; 66 (2): 194-197.

5. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DS, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, Shah K. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive service task force. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164 (4): 268-278.

6. Slanetz PJ, Freer PE, Birdwell RL. Breast-density legislation--practical considerations. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 593-595.

7. Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Chapman A. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 2013 (4): CD009632.

8. Bland KI, Copeland EM, Gradishar WJ. The breast comprehensive management of benign and malignant diseases. 4a ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2009.

9. Medina PG, Paraguasú MG. Positive predictive value of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) categories 3, 4 and 5. Radiol Bras. 2010; 43 (3): 171-174.

10. Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR. 1992; 158: 521-526.

11. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res. 2011; 13: 223.

12. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer statistics data visualizations tool [sede web]. US: Center for Disease Control and prevention; 2019. Disponible en. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/pdf/uscs-data-visualizations-tool-technical-notes-h.pdf

13. Scheel JR, Lee JM, Sprague BL, Lee CI, Lehman CD. Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 9-17.

14. Brem RF, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman J, Torrente J. Screening breast ultrasound: past, present, and future. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204: 234-240.