A new score for the evaluation of palpable breast masses in women under age 40

Morris, Katherine T.; Vetto, John T.; Petty, John K.; Lum, Sharon S.; Schmidt, Waldemar A.; Toth-Fejel, Su Ellen; Pommier, Rodney F.

doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00947-9

Cited by 31 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study agreed that clinical breast examination alone was not adequate for cancer diagnosis [8, 19]. Although FNAC on top of baseline information might be efficient (AuROC = 92.47%, OR = 3.52, P < 0.001) [7, 20–23], but false-negative results from FNAC may lead to delayed and/or under treatment, while false-positive results may lead to over treatment [24]. Additional ultrasonography or mammography after FNAC increases cancer prediction by 5.82% and 5.73%, clinically and statistically significant, but its application utility decreased profoundly to 8.36% and 7.30%.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Are Both Ultrasonography and Mammography Necessary for Cancer Investigation of Breast Lumps in Resource-Limited Countries?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To reevaluate the diagnostic value of breast imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer in areas where health resources are limited. Methods. Patients were women presenting with breast lumps in two university-affiliated tertiary hospitals, Thailand, during 2006 and 2010. Clinical data were abstracted from the breast cancer registration database and patient records. The diagnostic predictive ability of ultrasonography and mammography was obtained from logistic regression analysis and presented with areas under the receiver operating characteristics (AuROCs) curves. Results. Among 3129 breast lumps (3069 women), 854 were diagnosed with breast cancer by certified pathologists. Age and size of lumps alone already predicted cancer correctly in 77.45% (AuROC = 77.45). Additional ultrasonography increased the prediction to 96.22% (P < 0.001). Additional mammography also increased the prediction to 95.99% (P < 0.001). Performing both imaging modalities did not increase the prediction clinically (0.01%–0.24%). More accurate prediction (2.07%–2.21%) may be added by fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). Conclusions. Breast imaging is still valuable in settings where health resources are limited. Single breast imaging (only either ultrasonography or mammography) is adequate for cancer diagnosis. It is therefore unnecessary to perform both imaging modalities. Accuracy of the diagnosis may be improved by FNAC, if available.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Are Both Ultrasonography and Mammography Necessary for Cancer Investigation of Breast Lumps in Resource-Limited Countries?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The score created from the sum of numeric test results of different diagnostic tools is sensitive and accurate to predict the benign or malignant behaviour of the laesion [14]. Former it was applied only in the case of palpable lesions [14,15] but in the era of the routine use of ultrasound [16,15] and core biopsy the components of the triple test have changed applied in younger populations omitting X-ray radiation [17,18]. In screening of women with family history triple test consists of result of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Triple Test Score for the Evaluation of Invasive Ductal and Lobular Breast Cancer

Egyed¹,

Járay

Kulka

et al. 2008

Pathol. Oncol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of our study was to compare the preoperative sum score diagnostics of invasive ductal and lobular cancers using three or four diagnostic methods. The novelty of this study is the examination of this phenomenon based on sum score, no such papers can be found in the literature. Ductal cancers have higher score values indicating easier diagnostics, but the difference in distribution of the scores was significant (p = 0.0086) only in case of the triple-test. The score values give appropriate opportunity to create their order of diagnostic power which was the same by both histologic types and in their subgroups with low sum-score: the strongest was cytology, followed by mammography, ultrasound and physical examination. No significant difference was found between the two histologic group in their mammographic appearances-stellate, circumscribed, assymmetric distortion or microcalcification-(p = 0.0694). In low score subgroup besides the occult forms, structural distortion and indeterminate microcalcifications overweighed the stellate and circumscribed lesions typical for the whole groups. In symptomless cases of both histologic groups only one strongly malignant diagnostic test result warrants the right diagnosis. Summarizing the score distribution of the results in case of four diagnostic tools the higher scores-indicating malignancy-were more frequent in the ductal group compared to the lobular ones. Extra attention has to be paid to rare radiomorphologic appearances and to the most deterministic examination, namely cytology.

show abstract

“…Radiology chiefl y includes MG (mammography) and USG (ultrasonography) followed by biopsy. The incidence of breast cancer deaths can be reduced by 30 % by the routine screening of healthy women with MG 3,4 . This is because breast changes like asymmetry, neodensity, distortion of fi broglandular architecture and microcalcifi cations are picked up earlier than lesions that become clinically palpable, or are sometimes detected by self-examination 3,4 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Prasad¹,

Houserková²

2007

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

A new score for the evaluation of palpable breast masses in women under age 40

Cited by 31 publications

References 4 publications

Are Both Ultrasonography and Mammography Necessary for Cancer Investigation of Breast Lumps in Resource-Limited Countries?

Are Both Ultrasonography and Mammography Necessary for Cancer Investigation of Breast Lumps in Resource-Limited Countries?

Triple Test Score for the Evaluation of Invasive Ductal and Lobular Breast Cancer

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About