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.
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2009.2832
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12725
Brem ,Lenihan, Lieberman etal. Screening Breast Ultrasound: Past, Present, and Future.AJR. University of Washington. February 2015;204:234-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.12072
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmi.2013.31006
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.