|
|
|
Year :2016
|
Month :
July-August
|
Volume :
5
|
Issue :
3
|
Page :
-
|
Mammographic and Sonomammographic Evaluation of Breast Masses with Pathological Correlation: A Prospective Original Study
|
Correspondence Address :
Jaipal R Beerappa, Balu S, Nandan Kumar L D, An uradha Kapali, Raghuram P,
Dr. Jaipal R Beerappa,
Associate Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis,
Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore,
Karnataka. 560029, India.
E-mail: brdrjaipal@gmail.com
|
|
Introduction: Introduction: Breast lumps are common problem affecting females, which require proper workup, early diagnosis and treatment. Mammography is used as both screening modality and as an efficient technique to evaluate clinically suspected breast lesions. High-resolution sonography is a adjunct modality used in detecting lesions in dense breast and supplementary assessment of breast lesions.
Aim: To determine the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of mammography, sonomammography and both modalities together combined in assessment of breast lesions.
Materials and Methods: One hundred and two palpable or suspicious breast masses from 97 patients were evaluated with sonomammography, mammography and were correlated with appropriate pathological examination. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, negative predictive values and accuracy were computed for mammography, sonomammography and combined tests. Characteristics of mammography and sonomammography of breast lesions which help to differentiate benign from malignant lesions are assessed.
Results: Combining the mammography and USG, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV were 92.22%, 98.02%, 92.99% and 86.2% respectively. The study showed that there was no significant difference in sensitivity between mammography and USG (p=0.23). But there was a significant difference in mammography alone and mammography USG combination (p=0.002) and USG alone and combination (p=0.0015).
Conclusion: Combined mammographic, sonomammographic evaluation of breast masses was more accurate than either method alone. Irregular shape, high density, spiculated margins, microcalcification, posterior acoustic shadowing, heterogeneously hypoechoic nature, internal vascularity and associated features like skin, nipple thickening and retraction favor malignancy. Oval shape, surrounding halo, wider than tall lesion, anechoic or homogenously hypoechoic lesion with posterior acoustic enhancement favor benign lesion.
|
|
|
[
FULL TEXT ] | [
 ]
|
|
|
|
|