DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF COMBINED MAMMOGRAPHY AND ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN BREAST MALIGNANCY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN WESTERN RAJASTHAN POPULATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ijcpr.2025v17i2.6051Keywords:
BI-RADS, Breast lump, Mammography, HistologyAbstract
Objective: The breast cancer is a serious health concern for women that is receiving more attention due to its rising incidence and mortality. In the past 26 y, every state in the US has seen a rise in the age-standardized incidence rate of breast cancer in females, which rose by markedly in last 20 y.
Methods: A total of 100 female patients above 30 y age referred from out-patient for routine breast screening (BIRAD 2 or above), with or without lump or nodularity in the breast, with complaint of pain in the breast and history of nipple discharge were recruited into this prospective study. Ultrasonography and mammography BIRADS were performed and correlated with histology findings. This study was performed in the radiodiagnosis department at a tertiary care center in Western Rajasthan.
Results: The mean age of study participants was 46.9 y±10.52. Majority of the patients belonged to 41-50 year age group (40%). Out of 100 patients, 32% females had family history of breast cancer. The false negative rate of mammography and ultrasonography was 3% and 9%, respectively with highest percentage in 41-50 y age group (7.5%). The combined sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound (93.94%) was higher than individual techniques.
Conclusion: Combining ultrasonography and mammography findings improves cancer detection in screening of women at risk for breast cancer. The higher imaging BI-RADS classification grade showed a positive predictive value in detecting breast malignancy.
Downloads
References
World Health Organization. Breast cancer. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer. [Last accessed on 04 Jan 2024].
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660, PMID 33538338.
Brown AL, Phillips J, Slanetz PJ, Fein Zachary V, Venkataraman S, Dialani V. Clinical value of mammography in the evaluation of palpable breast lumps in women 30 Y old and older. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Oct;209(4):935-42. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17088, PMID 28777649.
Joshi P, Singh N, Raj G, Singh R, Malhotra KP, Awasthi NP. Performance evaluation of digital mammography digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer using pathology as gold standard: an institutional experience. Egypt J Rad Nucl Med. 2022 Jan 4;53(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s43055-021-00675-y.
Harvey JA, Mahoney MC, Newell MS, Bailey L, Barke LD, D Orsi C. ACR appropriateness criteria palpable breast masses. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Oct;10(10):742-9.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.06.013.
D Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS® atlas breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston VA: American College of Radiology; 2013. Available from: https://www.acr.org/clinical-resources/reporting-and-data-systems/bi-rads.
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012 Apr 4;307(13):1394-404. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.388, PMID 22474203.
Buchberger W, Geiger Gritsch S, Knapp R, Gautsch K, Oberaigner W. Combined screening with mammography and ultrasound in a population based screening program. Eur J Radiol. 2018 Apr 1;101:24-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.022, PMID 29571797.
Lee JM, Arao RF, Sprague BL, Kerlikowske K, Lehman CD, Smith RA. Performance of screening ultrasonography as an adjunct to screening mammography in women across the spectrum of breast cancer risk. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 May;179(5):658-67. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8372, PMID 30882843.
Mubuuke AG, Nassanga R, Galukande M. Comparative accuracy of sonography mammography and the BI-RADS characterization of breast masses among adult women at Mulago Hospital Uganda. J Glob Health Rep. 2023 May 23;7:e2023013. doi: 10.29392/001c.75139.
Ghaemian N, Haji Ghazi Tehrani N, Nabahati M. Accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography and their BI-RADS in detection of breast malignancy. Caspian J Intern Med. 2021;12(4):573-9. doi: 10.22088/cjim.12.4.573, PMID 34820065.
Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radio Graphics. 2015 Mar;35(2):302-15. doi: 10.1148/rg.352140106, PMID 25763718.
Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Tosto S, Monetti F. Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jun;34(16):1882-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.4147, PMID 26962097.
Park CJ, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Yoon JH, Kim MJ. Reliability of breast ultrasound BI-RADS final assessment in mammographically negative patients with nipple discharge and radiologic predictors of malignancy. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(3):308-15. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2016.19.3.308, PMID 27721881.
Heinig J, Witteler R, Schmitz R, Kiesel L, Steinhard J. Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI‐RADS. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Sep;32(4):573-8. doi: 10.1002/uog.5191, PMID 18421795.
LA Forgia D, Fausto A, Gatta G, DI Grezia G, Faggian A, Fanizzi A. Elite VABB 13G: a new ultrasound guided wireless biopsy system for breast lesions. Technical characteristics and comparison with respect to traditional core biopsy 14-16G systems. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;10(5):291. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10050291, PMID 32397505.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 YOGESH SONAGARA, RAJENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY, KIRTI CHATURVEDY, SAMTA BUDANIA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.