Diagnostic Value Of Mammography And Ultrasonography For Differentiation Of Benign And Malignant Breast Masses

Year 2013, , 15 - 18, 01.01.2013

Eriz Özden

https://doi.org/10.1501/Tipfak_0000000835

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic value of mammography and ultrasonography for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses. Material and Methods: Fifty-one patients who had palpable breast masses were evaluated with both mammography and US. The detected lesions were classified as benign or malignant according to their imaging features and these results were evaluated according to the histopathological reports. Results: Histopathologically, 28 of the 51 breast masses (54.9%) were reported as benign and 23 (45.1%) as malignant. The sensitivity and specificity of mammography were 81.4% and 90.4% for benign masses. The sensitivity and specificity of US for benign masses were 85.7% and 82.6%. The sensitivity and specificity of mammography for malign masses were 90.9% and 81.4%. The sensitivity and specificity of US for malignant masses were 78.2% and 85.7%. Conclusion: Although ultrasonography is a valuable imaging method for the differentiation of solid – cystic breast masses, mammography is superior to ultrasonography for benignmalignant differentiation

Keywords

-

Meme Kitlelerinde Benign-Malign Ayrımında Mammografi Ve Ultrasonografinin Tanı Değeri

Abstract

Amaç: Mammografi ve ultrasonografinin, meme kitlelerinde benign-malign ayrımı yapmaktaki değerini belirlemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Palpabl meme kitlesi olan ve bu nedenle ultrasonografi ve mammografi incelemesi yapılan 51 olgu çalıșmaya dahil edilmiștir. İzlenen kitleler özelliklerine göre benignmalign olarak ayrılmıș, bu sonuçlar histopatoloji raporları ile karșılaștırılmıștır. Bulgular: Histopatoloji sonuçlarında 51 meme kitlesinin 28’i (%54.9) benign, 23’ü (%45.1) malign olarak raporlanmıștır. Benign kitlelerde mamografinin sensitivite ve spesifisitesi %81.4 ve %90.4 olarak belirlenmiștir. Benign kitlelerde US’nin sensitivite ve spesifisitesi ise %85.7 ve %82.6 olarak hesaplanmıștır. Malign kitlelerde mamografinin sensitivite ve spesifisitesi %90.9 ve %81.4 olarak belirlenmiștir. Malign kitlelerde US’nin sensitivite ve spesifisitesi ise %78.2 ve %85.7 olarak hesaplanmıștır. Sonuç: Meme kitlelerinde, kistik-solid ayrımında ultrasonografi değerli bir görüntüleme yöntemidir. Ancak benign-malign ayrımında mammografi ultrasonografiden üstündür.

Keywords

Mammografi, Ultrasonografi, Meme Kitlesi

References

• 1- Kopans DB. Breast imaging and the standart of care for the symptomatic patient. Radiology 1993;187:608-611.
• 2- Sherman C, Colman K. Klinik 8- Baert AL, Grenier PG, Willi UV, et al. Onkoloji, Türk Kanser ve Savaş Kurumu 1990;162:174.
• 3- Feig AS. Breast masses. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:67-92.
• 4- Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US , and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004;223:830-849.
• 5- Conant EF, Dilian RL, Palazzo J. Imaging findings in mucin-containing carcinomas of the breast: correlation with pathologic features. American Journal of Roentgenology 1994;163:821-824.
• 6- Yu PC, Lee YW, Chou FF, et al. Clustered microcalcifications of intermediate concern detected on 12- Mc Sweeney MB, Murphy CH. Whole digital mammography: ultrasound assessment. Breast 2011;20:495-500.
• 7- Basset LW. Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:95-105. Imaging of the breast, An update. European Congress of Radiology, Vienna. European Society of Radiology. 1993; 78-83
• 9- Kopans DB. Breast imaging in: Kopans DB, editor. Atlas of Breast Imaging. 1 st ed. Phil: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1989:50-100.
• 10- Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, et al. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public act 09-41. Radiology 2012;265:56-69.
• 11- Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H, et al. Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience: Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48:931-987. breast sonography, Radiol Clin North Am 1985; 23 : 157-167.
• 13- Feig AS. The role of ultrasound in a breast imaging center, Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1989;10:90-105.
• 14- Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Pilpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography, state of the art. Radiology 2013;268:642-659.
• 15- Chang YW, Kwon KH, Goo DE, et al. Sonographic differentiation of benign and malign cystic lesions of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26:47-53.
• 16- Linda A, Zuiani C, Lorenzon M, et al. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: not always benign American Journal of Roentgenology 2011;196:1219-1224.
• 17- Kim JM, Kim JY, Yoon JH, et al. How to find an isoechoic lesion with breast US. Radiographics 2011;31:663-676.
• 18- Paulinelli RR, Freitas-Junior R, Morrreira MAR, et al. Risk of malignancy in solid breast nodules according to their sonographic features. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:635-641.
• 19- Wang LC, Sullivan M, Hongyan D, et al. US appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 2013;33:213-228.
• 20- Basset LW, Kime-Smith C. Breast Sonography. American Journal of Roentgenology1991;156:449-455.