Comparison of Mammography, Ultrasonography, and both Combined in the Interpretation of Palpable Breast Mass
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54361/LJMR.18.1-16Keywords:
Mammography, Ultrasonography, Breast Mass, cancerAbstract
Background: Breast cancer is the most common female malignancy in worldwide and the second leading cause of female cancer death in the United States (1, 14). On average, every two minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer and one woman will die of breast cancer every thirteen minutes(13) In Libyan breast cancer is most common cancer in female (17 ) Although the majority of palpable lumps are benign, a new palpable breast mass is a common presenting sign of breast cancer. the aim of the study to reveal the role of USS and MG and both in evaluating palpable breast mass because both are available and more accurate in evaluated palpable breast mass depend on the aging and breast density .Materials and methods: prospective study between January 2018 and march 2019 In Department of Radiology in Benghazi medical center (BMC); used the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification on fifty palpable breast masses in two models (USS and MG ) and described each masses by selecting a single term from the Bl-RADS lexicon for description mass margin and shape. Kappa values were calculated to assess the agreement between BIRADS assessment category and agreement between descriptions of masses margin and shape .Additionally, another reader used same USS Bl-RADS lexicon for description mass margin to assessed lnter-observer variability. Result :Regarding BIRADS assessment category, agreement between the MG and combined (USS and MG ) interpretations were moderate (K=0.4);agreement between USS and combined (USS and MG ) was very good (k=0.84); agreement between BIRADs category of USS and MG in descriptive shape of palpable breast mass was moderate (k=0.50) while for margin fair agreement (k=0.26).poor lnter-observer variability(k=0.19) in USS Bl-RADS lexicon for description mass margin. Conclusion: USS better than MG in detected palpable breast mass so can be use as diagnostic tool for characterized palpable breast mass.
Downloads
References
. Linda Moy, Heller, Bailey, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Palpable
Breast Masses. Journal of the American College of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine.2017;14 (55):1-22.
Emine devolli-disha et al. comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density. bosnian journal of basic medical sciences .2009; 9 (2): 132-136.
kobrunne, Dershaw, Schreer. Sonography .in: Diagnostic Breast Imaging.2nd edition. new York .2001.P.89-102.
Lehman ,Y lee, l lee. Imaging Management of Palpable Breast Abnormalities. AJR. University of Washington. November 2014;203: 1142-1153.
Brem ,Lenihan, Lieberman etal. Screening Breast Ultrasound: Past, Present, and Future.AJR. University of Washington. February 2015;204:234-240.
Creech, Butler, Wiegmann et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas; Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.AJR. 1st e-publication, June 2014.
Smithuis, Zonderland. Bi-RADS for Mammography and Ultrasound 2013
Updated version. radiological assessment. Radiology department of the Academical Medical Centre in Amsterdam and the Rijnland hospital in Leiderdorp, the Netherlands . October 8, 2014.
Taori, Dhakate, Rathod et al. Evaluation of Breast Masses Using Mammography and Sonography as First Line Investigations. Open Journal of Medical Imaging.india..2013;3:40-49.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Faiza Mohamed Kutrani, Ebtisam Elgbali, Nadya Ben Geweref , Mohamed H. Mohamed Buzgheia, Ali A. Beheh , Fatma Soof , Seham Elbadri (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access Policy
Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR).is an open journal, therefore there are no fees required for downloading any publication from the journal website by authors, readers, and institution.
The journal applies the license of CC BY (a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). This license allows authors to keep ownership f the copyright of their papers. But this license permits any user to download , print out, extract, reuse, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and the source of the work.
The license ensures that the article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific archive.
Editorial Policy
The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR). It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Any manuscript or substantial parts of it, submitted to the journal must not be under consideration by any other journal. In general, the manuscript should not have already been published in any journal or other citable form, although it may have been deposited on a preprint server. Authors are required to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.
Authorship Policy
The manuscript authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution and intellectual input to the research submitted to the journal, including design, performance, interpretation of the reported study, and writing the manuscript. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript but without intellectual input should only be recognized in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript. Also, one of the authors should be selected as the corresponding author to communicate with the journal and approve the final version of the manuscript for publication in the LJMR.
Peer-review Policy
- All the manuscripts submitted to LJMR will be subjected to the double-blinded peer-review process;
- The manuscript will be reviewed by two suitable experts in the respective subject area.
- Reports of all the reviewers will be considered while deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript.
- Editor-In-Chief will make the final decision, based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Editor-In-Chief can ask one or more advisory board members for their suggestions upon a manuscript, before making the final decision.
- Associate editor and review editors provide administrative support to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
- In case, authors challenge the editor’s negative decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript can be sent to one more reviewer and the final decision will be made based upon his recommendations.
