The importance of combining of ultrasound and mammography in breast cancer diagnosis

Svjetlana Mujagić, Mensura Burina, Jasminka Mustedanagić-Mujanović, Goran Šarkanović

Abstract


Objective. The aim of this study was to analyse individual and combinedsensitivity and specificity of ultrasound and mammography inbreast cancer diagnosis and emphasize the importance of combiningbreast imaging modalities. Patients and methods. By means ofa cross-sectional study, ultrasound and mammographic examinationsof 148 women (mean age 51.6 ± 10.8 years) with breast symptomswere analysed. All women underwent surgery and all lesions were examinedby histopathology analysis which revealed the presence of 63breast cancers, and 85 benign lesions. In relation to age, the womenwere separated in to a group under 50 years and a group 50 years andolder. Ultrasound and mammographic findings were classified on theBI-RADS categorical scale of 1-5. Categories 1, 2 and 3 were considerednegative, while categories 4 and 5 were positive for cancer. Forstatistical data processing the McNemar chi-square test for pairedproportions was used. The differences on the level of p<0.05 were consideredstatistically significant. Results. In the group under 50 years,the ultrasound sensitivity was significantly higher than the mammographicsensitivity (p=0.045, c2=4), without a statistically significantdifference in specificity (p=0.24, c2=1.39). In the women over 50, asignificant difference between sensitivity of ultrasound and mammographywas not proved (p=0.68, c2=0.17), nor any difference in thespecificities (p=0.15, c2=2.08). In the group consisting of all patients,the sensitivity of ultrasound was statistically significantly higher incomparison with the sensitivity of mammography (p=0.04, c2=4.27)with higher specificity (p=0.04, c2=4). By combining the two methodsin all patients sensitivity of 96.8% was achieved, in patients up to 50sensitivity was 90.47% and in patients over 50, sensitivity was 100%.When the two methods were combined in all patients, a decrease inspecificity was noted. Conclusion. The combination of ultrasound andmammography in breast cancer diagnosis achieves high sensitivityand the number of undetected breast cancers is reduced to minimum.

Keywords


Breast cancer; Ultrasound; Mammography; Sensitivity; Specificity

Full Text:

PDF

References


McPherson K, Steel M, Dixon J. Breast cancerepidemiology, risk factors, and genetic. Brit Med J. 2000;321:624-8.

Jemal A, Tivvari RC, Murrav T, Ghafoor A, Samuels A, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54(1)8-29.

Goldner B, Dodić M, Mijović Z, Stević R. Klinički ultrazvuk u bolestima dojke. Beograd: Medicinski fakultet Beograd; 1998. p. 15-153.

American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 1998.

Boris B, Renata HK. - prevod s engleskog Leksikon ACR BI-RADS, mamografija. Branko Š (ur.), ACR-BIRADS Postupci oslikavanja dojki i sustav tumačenja i kategorizacija nalaza; Oslikavanje dojki - Atlas mamografija Utrazvuk; 2006.

Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996;276:33-8.

Ciatto S, Rosselli del Turco M, Catarzi S, Morrone D. The contribution of ultrasonography to the differential diagnosis of breast cancer. Neoplasma. 1994;41:341-5.

Sibbering DM, Burrell HC, Evans EJ, Yeoman LJ, Wilson ARM, Robertson JF, et al. Mammographic sensitivity in women under 50 years presenting symptomatically with breast cancer. The Breast. 1999;4:127-9.

Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Lamb J, Nixon SJ, Forrest APM. Fine needle aspiration cytology, in relationships to clinical examination and mammography in the diagnosis of a solid breast mass. Br J Surg. 1986;71:593-6.

Housami N, Irvvig L, Simpson M, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. Comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography in young women with simptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:935-45.

Devolli-Disha E, Manxhuka-Kërliu S, Ymeri H, Kutllovci A. Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2009;9(2):131-6.

Teixidor H S, Kazam E. Combined mammographic ± sonographic evaluation of breast masses. Am J Roentgenol. 1977;409-17.

Negri S, Bonetti F, Capitanio A, Bonzanini M. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration in the management of breast lesions: comparison of specificity and sensitivity with clinical examination, mammography, echography, and thermography in 249 patients. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994;11:4-8.

Moss HA, Britton PD, Flower CDR, Freeman AH, Lomas DJ, Warren RML. How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population? Clin Radiol. 1999;54:676-82.

Rotten D, Levaillant J M. The value of ultrasonic examination to detect and diagnose breast carcinomas. Analysis of the results obtained in 125 tumors using radiographic and ultrasound mammography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.

;2:203-14.

Houssami N, Irwig L, Loy C. Accuracy of combined breast imaging in young women. Breast. 2002;11:36-40.

Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology. 1999;213:413-22.

Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213:889-94.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


2016 Department of Medical Sciences, Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. All rights reserved.
 
The full text of articles published in this journal can be used free of charge for personal and educational purposes while respecting authors and publishers’ copyrights. For commercial purposes no part of this journal may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher.