OJMI  Vol.3 No.1 , March 2013
Evaluation of Breast Masses Using Mammography and Sonography as First Line Investigations
Abstract: Purpose: To study the specificity of mammography and ultrasonography separately and in combination for detection of breast masses (ultrasonography-mammography correlation); To study the investigations to evaluate various breast masses; To describe suitable indications, advantages and limitations of each technique compared with other available modalities; To study the mimics of breast masses; To have histopathology follow-up and retrospective evaluation with imaging findings to improve diagnostic skills in series of 166 patients complaining of breast mass. Material: The prospective clinical study was carried out in the department of Radiodiagnosis for a period of 2 year extending from December 2010 to December 2012 infemale patients complaining of breast mass. Well informed written consent was obtained from them. Histopathology follow up was obtained from either biopsy or post operative tissue. USG machine: Philips HD 11 XE USG of the breasts and axillary region done in supine position in presence of female attendant; Mammography machine: Allengers machine with Agfa special mammography cassettes. Cranio caudal and Medio-Lateral Oblique views are taken in the presence of female attendant. MRI: PHILIPS 1.5 T machine; CT: SIEMENS duel slice CT machine. Results: Ultrasonography and mammography was done in most of the cases were sufficient to diagnose the lesion in most of the cases especially in benign breast masses. MRI and CT scan was used in special cases to know the extent of the lesions, in mimics of breast masses, bony extensions, primary muscular and bony lesions. Total 166 patients complaining of breast mass in one or both breasts were examined and evaluated with USG and mammography. The lesions were confirmed on histopathology (FNAC/biopsy). Out of 30 diagnosed malignancies two lesions were missed on mammography and four lesions were missed on ultrasonography. One of them was missed on both. For malignancies specificity of mammography is 93.3% and that of ultrasonography is 86.67%. Combining both the modalities specificity is near 97%. Out of total 92 abnormal breasts 12 were missed on USG and 20 were missed on mammography. Combining both the modalities only 2 lesions were missed and were diagnosed on histopathology alone. Overall specificity for USG in breast masses is 86.9% and for mammography it is 78.6%. Combining both the modalities the specificity is 97.6%. The “p” value is obtained which is highly significant for combination of ultrasonography and mammography in comparison with any individual modality (p = 0.0059 & p = 0.0001 respectively). Conclusion: Our study confirms the higher combined sensitivity rate for ultrasonography and mammography for detection of breast masses including malignancies. USG is useful in cystic lesions, ectasias, infections, pregnancy-lactation, and dense breast evaluation and for image guidance, whereas mammography is useful in detecting microcalcifications, spiculated masses for early detection of malignancies and for stereotactic biopsies. To suggest single modality, ultrasonography is better in younger population and BIRAD 1, 2 & 3 lesions. Whereas, mammography is better in older population and BIRAD 4 & 5 lesions. However, sono-mammographic correlation is best in both.
Cite this paper: K. Taori, S. Dhakate, J. Rathod, A. Hatgaonkar, A. Disawal, P. Wavare, V. Bakare and R. Puri, "Evaluation of Breast Masses Using Mammography and Sonography as First Line Investigations," Open Journal of Medical Imaging, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2013, pp. 40-49. doi: 10.4236/ojmi.2013.31006.

[1]   World Health Organization, “Fact Sheet No. 297: Cancer,” 2006.

[2]   R. H. Gold, “The Evolution of Mammography,” Radiologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1992, pp. 1-19.

[3]   K. T. Morris, J. T. Vetto, J. K. Petty, S. S. Lum, W. A. Schmidt, S. Toth-Fejel, et al., “A New Score for the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Masses in Women under Age 40,” American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 184, No. 4, 2002, pp. 346-347. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(02)00947-9

[4]   W. A. Berg, L. Gutierrez, M. S. Ness Aiver, W. B. Carter, M. Bhargavan, R. S. Lewis and O. B. Ioffe, “Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammography, Clinical Examination, US, and MR Imaging in Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer,” Radiology, Vol. 233, No. 3, 2004, pp. 830-849.

[5]   J. J. Wild and J. M. Reid, “Further Pilot Echographic Studies on the Histologic Structure of Tumors of the Living Intact Human Breast,” American Journal of Pathology, Vol. 28, No. 5, 1952, pp. 839-886.

[6]   D. Clarke, N. Sudhakaran and C. A. Gateley, “Replace Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology with Automated Core Biopsy in the Triple Assessment of Breast Cancer,” Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 83, No. 2, 2001, pp. 110-112.

[7]   J. M. Schoonjans and R. F. Brem, “Fourteen-Gauge Ultrasonographically Guided Large-Core Needle Biopsy of Breast Masses,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 20, No. 9, 2001, pp. 967-972.

[8]   S. H. Giordano, “A Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Male Breast Cancer,” Oncologist, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2005, pp. 471-479. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.10-7-471

[9]   Noninvasive Diagnostic Tests for Breast Abnormalities: Update of a 2006 Review.

[10]   K. L. Chakraborti, P. Bahl, M. Sahoo, S. K. Ganguly and C. Oberoi, “Magentic Resonance Imaging of Breast Masses: Comparison with Mammography,” Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2005, pp. 381-387 doi:10.4103/0971-3026.29160

[11]   W. P. Evans, “Breast Masses, Appropriate Evaluation,” RCNA, Vol. 33, No. 6, 1995, pp. 1085-1108.

[12]   K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B. M. Ljung and D. Grady, “Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 139, No. 4, 2003, pp. 274-284.

[13]   M. Kumle, E. Weiderpass, T. Braaten, I. Persson, H. O. Adami and E. Lund, “Use of Oral Contraceptives and Breast Cancer Risk: The Norwegian-Swedish Women’s Lifestyle and Health Cohort Study,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, Vol. 11, No. 11, 2002, pp. 1375-1381.

[14]   M. K. Shetty, Y. P. Shah and R. S. Sharman, “Prospective Evaluation of the Value of Combined Mammographic and Sonographic Assessment in Patients with Palpable Abnormalities of the Breast,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2003, pp. 263-268.

[15]   G. Gurung, R. K. Ghimire and B. Lohani, “Mammographic Evaluation of Palpable Breast Masses with Pathological Correlation: A Tertiary Care Centre Study in Nepal,” Journal of Institute of Medicine, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2010, pp. 21-25

[16]   J. R. Osuch, M. J. Reeves, D. R. Pathak and T. Kinchelow, “BREASTAID: Clinical Results from Early Development of a Clinical Decision Rule for Palpable Solid Breast Masses,” Annals of Surgery, Vol. 238, No. 5, 2003, pp. 728-737. doi:10.1097/

[17]   H. A. Moss, P. D. Britton, C. D. Flower, A. H. Freeman, D. J. Lomas and R. M. Warren, “How Reliable Is Modern Breast Imaging in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Breast Lesions in the Symptomatic Population?” Clinical Radiology, Vol. 54, No. 10, 1999, pp. 676-682. doi:10.1016/S0009-9260(99)91090-5

[18]   W. A. Berg, C. I. Campassi and O. B. Ioffe, “Cystic Lesions of the Breast: Sonographic-Pathologic Correlation,” Radiology, Vol. 227, No. 1, 2003, pp. 183-191. doi:10.1148/radiol.2272020660

[19]   T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy and J. H. Newhouse, “Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations,” Radiology, Vol. 225, No. 1, 2002, pp. 165-175. doi:10.1148/radiol.2251011667

[20]   W. E. Barlow, C. D. Lehman, Y. Zheng, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. C. Yankaskas, G. R. Cutter, et al., “Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women with Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94, No. 15, 2002, pp. 1151-1159. doi:10.1093/jnci/94.15.1151

[21]   D. Lister, A. J. Evans, H. C. Burrell, R. W. Blamey, A. R. Wilson, S. E. Pinder, et al., “The Accuracy of Breast Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Clinically Benign Discrete, Symptomatic Breast Lumps,” Clinical Radiology, Vol. 53, No. 10, 1998, pp. 490-492. doi:10.1016/S0009-9260(98)80167-0

[22]   M. A. Dennis, S. H. Parker, A. J. Klaus, A. T. Stavros, T. I. Kaske and S. B. Clark, “Breast Biopsy Avoidance: The Value of Normal Mammograms and Normal Sonograms in the Setting of a Palpable Lump,” Radiology, Vol. 219, No. 1, 2001, pp. 186-191.

[23]   S. P. Weinstein, E. F. Conant, S. G. Orel, J. A. Zuckerman, B. Czerniecki and T. J. Lawton, “Retrospective Review of Palpable Breast Lesions after Negative Mammography and Ultrasonography,” Journal of Women’s Imaging, Vol. 2, 2000, pp. 15-18

[24]   A. T. Stavros, D. Thickman, C. L. Rapp, M. A. Dennis, S. H. Parker and G. A. Sisney, “Solid Breast Nodules: Use of Ultrasonography to Distinguish between Benign and Malignant Lesions,” Radiology, Vol. 196, No. 1, 1995, pp. 123-134.

[25]   E. Ueno, E. Tohno and K. Itoh, “Classification and Diagnostic Criteria in Breast Echography,” Journal of Medical Ultrasonics, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1986, pp. 19-31.

[26]   P. Skaane and K. Engedal, “Analysis of Sonographic Features in the Differentiation of Fibroadenoma and Invasive Ductal carcinoma,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 170, No. 1, 1998, pp. 109-114. doi:10.2214/ajr.170.1.9423610

[27]   W. H. Hindle, P. A. Payne and E. Y. Pan, “The Use of Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Evaluation of Persistent Palpable Dominant Breast Masses,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 168, No. 6, 1993, pp. 1814-1819.

[28]   H. C. Lee, P. J. Ooi, W. T. Poh and C. Y. Wong, “Impact of Inadequate Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology on Outcome of Patients with Palpable Breast Lesions,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, Vol. 70, No. 9, 2000, pp. 656-659. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01920.x

[29]   H. Khatun, Tareak-Al-Nasir, S. Enam, M. Hussain and M. Begum, “Correlation of Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology and Its Histopathology in Diagnosis of Breast Lumps,” Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2002, pp. 77-81.

[30]   S. N. Prasad and D. Houserkova, “A Comparison of Mammography and Ultraultrasonography in the Evaluation of breast masses,” Biomedical Papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czech Republic, Vol. 151, No. 2, 2007, pp. 315-322. doi:10.5507/bp.2007.054