A comparison of mammography and ultrasonography in the evaluation of breast masses

Abstract

Aim: Aim of the study is to evaluate breast masses using mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (USG) independently and in combination.Materials and methods: Our study group consisted of 62 female patients, with breast symptoms such as palpable lumps, pain in the breast and nipple discharge who were examined prospectively over a period of 6 months.All 62 patients were examined by both MG and USG independently. Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) or core cut biopsy was done according to the fi ndings of MG and USG and then the results were correlated with each modality fi nding.Results: According to this study MG showed an effi ciency of 81.8 % compared to 95.5 % for USG in detecting fi brocystic mastitis. However their combined approach resulted in 100 %. In the case of fi broadenomas, MG showed 75 % effi ciency and USG only 35 % and the combination resulting in 93.7 %. For carcinomas, MG had an effi ciency of 77.8 % and USG 55.6 %, but the combination had an effi ciency of 98.1 %. Overall, the histopathological results when correlated with each modality fi nding showed that MG had an effi ciency of only 77.4 % and USG only 69.8 % when used alone in detecting these lesions of the breast compared to an effi ciency of 98.1 % obtained by their combined approach. In our study, we showed that there was no signifi cant diff erence in sensitivity between MG and USG (p = 0.3768) but there was signifi cant diff erence in MG alone and MG-USG combination (p = 0.0015) and USG alone and USG-MG combination (p = 0.0001).Conclusion: Our study confi rmed that combined MG and USG had higher sensitivity rate than the sensitivity rate observed for either single modality. The diagnostic accuracy for carcinomas of the breast appear to improve when MG was combined with USG, even in cases which showed no evidence of microcalcifi cation or other signs of abnormalities. Our study implies that, USG may be the only viable modality in pregnant and lactating women as it does not involve ionizing radiation and also in dense breast tissue, as density is a limiting factor for MG.

Mammography and Ultrasound Imaging of Preinvasive and Invasive Canine Spontaneous Mammary Cancer and Their Similarities to Human Breast Cancer

“…It is used for evaluating palpable masses in radiographically dense breast as well as young women susceptible to radiation. It used in combination with mammography to reduce the negative to positive biopsy ratio (43). Features that characterize an invasive carcinoma by ultrasonography include irregular shape, irregular margin, internal hypoechogenicity, and nonuniform distribution of internal echo texture (44).…”

Mammography and Ultrasonography Reports Compared with Tissue Diagnosis - An Evidence Based Study in Iran, 2010

“…In this study the sensitivity and specificity of mammography reports estimated 73% and 45% and in ultrasonography was 69% and 49%, respectively. As is shown in table 2, these indices varied in different studies (Ciatto et al, 1994;Kacl et al, 1998;Malur et al, 2000;Berg et al, 2008;Prasad et al, 2007;Devolli-Disha et al, 2009;Akbari et al, 2010).…”

“…Factors affect the ultrasonography reports are ( Prasad et al, 2007): 1. Expertise of man power (human power dependent); 2.…”

“…Different factors affect the mammography reports as follows ( Prasad et al, 2007): 1. Evaluation of dense breasts is difficult and often inadequate; 2.…”

“…In high risk cases, US helps to distinguish cystic by solid masses. (York et al, 2010;Prasad et al, 2007;Crystal et al, 2003) In mammography, sensitivity and specificity in different studies were repoted 79.9%-89% and 64%-93% (Ciatto et al, 1994;Kacl et al, 1998;Malur et al, 2000).This difference is related to uncalibration in setting, incorrect technique or report the result, dense breast or subtle feature. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were ranged from 67%-96% and 93%-97% in different reports.…”