Title: Diagnostic Evaluation of Ultrasound in Detecting Breast Masses Keeping Histopathology as Gold Standard - A Hospital Based Study
Authors: Dr Niya Ann Kurien, Dr Viji Krishnan
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i11.81
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is the most common female malignancy worldwide. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the worth of ultrasonography in diagnosis of symptomatic breast diseases by comparing it with mammogram using histopathology as gold standard.
Materials and Methods: Total 50 patients of breast cancer were included in this comparative study. These cases were subjected to mammography. Ultrasound was then performed as an alternate modality while clinical and mammographic results were available to the radiologist evaluating the ultrasound scans. Statistical measures of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), accuracy of both mammography and ultrasound were calculated by taking histopathology as gold standard.
Results: Distribution of cases was based on clinical diagnosis and presenting symptoms was as follows: mass palpable-27(54.0%), breast pain-20(40.0%), with nipple discharge -7 (14.0%), lymphnode-17(94%), menopause-32 (64.0 %) and skin discoloration -17(34.0%). Family history of breast cancer was also present in 27(54.0%). The specificity of combined effect of axillary lymph node on mammogram and mammogram –mass(ill defined) and also ultrasound in predicting malignancy if pathology finding is gold standard is 100%.Our data indicate that sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound was also statistically significant with mammography in patients with breast symptoms for the detection of breast cancer
Conclusion: Ultrasound can also be considered as a primary screening tool in population and as a complementary tool to mammography to minimize the chances of missing diagnosis of breast cancers.
Keywords: Breast masses, Mammography, histopathology.
References
- Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari RC, Ghafoor A, et al. Cancer statistics 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:10-30.
- Rahbar , A.C. Sie, G.C. Hansen, J.S Prince ,M.L. Melany, H.E. Reynold, V.P. Jackson, J.W. Sayre and L.W. Bassett. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999; 213: 889-894.
- Dennis M, S.H. Parker, J. Klaus, T.A, Stavros T.I, Kaske and S.B. Clark. Breast Biopsy Avoidance: The Value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump.Radiology 2001;219: 186-191.
- Okobia, M.N., H. Bunker, F.E. Okonofua and U. Osime, 2006. Knowledge, attitude and practice of Nigerian Women towards breast cancer: a cross-sectional study. World Journal of surgical Oncology 2006 ;4: Doi: 10, 1186/1477-7819-4-11.
- Ryan S, Mc Nicholas M, Eustace S. Anatomy for diagnostic imaging. Spain: Saunders publishers; 2004; p.30713.
- Tabar , G. Fagerberg, S.W. Duffy N.E, Day A. Gad and O. Grontoft. Update of the Swedish two-country program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radio Clin North Am 1992;30: 187-201.
- Shyyan R, R.S. Masood, R.A. Badwe, K.M. Errico L. Liberman, V. Ozmen, Stalsberg, H. Vagas and L. Vass. Breast cancer in limited-resource countries: diagnosis and pathology. The Breast Journal 2006 ;12 suppl.1: 27-37.
- Berg ,W and P. Gilbreath. Multicentric and multifocal cancer: Whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. Radiology 200; 214: 59-66.
- American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast Imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS)- 2 ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology,2003.
- Hille H, Vetter M, Hackelöer BJ .Re-evaluating the role of breast ultrasound in current diagnostics of malignant breast lesions.2004 ; 25(6):411-17.