Correlations Of Clinical Examination, Mammographic And Ultrasonographic Findings In Breast Evaluations

Year 2000, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 9 - 12, 01.08.2000

Yelda Özsunar Dayanır Ayşegül Özdemir

Abstract

Objective: Purpose of our study was to determine the age distribution, symptoms, physical examination, mammography and ultrasonography findings in the patient population admitted to our mammography unit during a two-year period, and to investigate the relationship of these parameters Material and Method: 1053 patients were analysed retrospectively. The symptoms, physical examination findings, mammographic and sonographic findings were compared. Results: The main symptom was a breast mass in 41% of the patients. In 55% of patients who were sent for a palpable breast mass, no lesions could be detected with mammography or ultrasonography. On the other hand, 36% of the patients with negative physical examination and 19% of those within the whole study population yielded nonpalpable breast lesions. Conclusion: There is a weak correlation between the breast symptomatology and physical examination and radiological imaging findings. The causes of reduced sensitivity of physical examination should be considered. Physical examination should be completed with mammographic and ultrasonographic evaluation before deciding on an excisional biopsy.

Keywords

breast, physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography

References

• 1. Teh W, Wilson AR. The role of ultrasound in breast cancer screening. A consensus statement by the European Group for Breast Cancer Screening. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34 :449-50.
• 2. Furnival CM. Breast cancer: current issues in diagnosis and treatment. Aust N Z J Surg 1997; 67: 47-58.
• 3. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR 1999; 173: 921-7.
• 4. NCCN practice guidelines. Screening for and evaluation of suspicious breast lesions. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Oncology (Huntingt) 1998; 12(11A): 89-138.
• 5. Özdemir A, Iþýk S, Ilgýt E Araç M. Meme kanserinde erken teþhisin ve mammografik taramanýn önemi. Gazi Týp Dergisi 1992; 3: 251-6.
• 6. Warren S. Roentgenologic study of the breast. AJR 1930; 24: 113-24.
• 7. Üstün EE, Memiþ A. Meme aðrýsýnýn meme paterni ile olan iliþkisi. Ege Üniversitesi Týp Fakültesi Dergisi 1987; 26: 73-82.
• 8. Üstün EE, Memiþ A, Arkun R, Üstün G. Mammografik dansitenin fizik baký ile iliþkisi. Ege Üniversitesi Týp Fakültesi Dergisi 1989; 28: 1225-30.
• 9. Üstün EE, Arkun R, Memiþ A. Meme paternlerinin mammografik ve ultrasonografik deðerlendirilmesi. Ege Üniversitesi Týp Fakültesi Dergisi 1988; 27: 511-7.
• 10. Özdemir A, Iþýk S, Ilgýt E, Çetin M, Köse S, Köker E. Mammographic and ultrasonographic evaluation of breast lesions and stereotactic wire localization. Gazi Medical Journal 1993; 4: 167-71.
• 11. Ashley-S, Ryle G, Corder A. Clinical and cytological diagnosis of breast cancer in young woman. Br J Surg 1989; 76: 835-7.
• 12. International Union Against Cancer TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors 4th ed. Berlin Springer Verlag 1987.
• 13. S.Ciatto, M.Roselli del turco. Causes of Breast Cancer Misdiagnosis at Physical Examination. Neoplasm 1991; 38: 523-31.
• 14. Lamarque JL. An Atlas of Breast Clinical Radiodiagnoses. England 2nd ed. 1984: 33-6.
• 15. Sabel MS, Staren ED. Innovations in breast imaging: how ultrasound can enhance the early detection of breast cancer. Medscape Womens Health 1997; 2:1-8.
• 16. Skaane P, Sager EM, Olsen JB, Abdelnoor M, Berger A, Wolff PA, Kullmann G. Diagnostic value of ultrasonography in patients with palpable mammographically noncalcified breast tumors. Acta Radiol 1999; 40:163-8.
• 17. Lawrence W, Basset. Current status and future directions. The Radiolologic Clinics of North America Breast Imaging 1992; 30: 211-9.
• 18. Lay SF, Crump JM. Breast biopsy changing patern during a five year period. Am Surgeon 1990; 56: 79- 85.