AIM: Ongoing technical progress has increased the accuracy of imaging in ultrasound mammography. Using a 10-MHz-transducer, eight different criteria of dignity were evaluated for validity, also with regard to the size of a tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of three years, 446 breast tumors were ultrasonographically examined by two experienced medical doctors. The study comprised only suspicious lesions detected by mammography and/or manual palpation. Diagnostic validity was quantified by means of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, as well as the ODDS-ratio. RESULTS: Ultrasound mammography demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.0 %, specificity of 91.4 %, positive predictive value of 95.9 %, and a negative predictive value of 99.1 %. Eight different sonographic criteria were validated separately. The most important signs of malignancy were (in descending order): a highly echogenic halo, spikes, jagged contour, posterior acoustic shadowing, and discontinuity of tissue structure. Features of benign disease were: smooth edge, posterior acoustic enhancement, displacement margin, bilateral acoustic shadowing and continuity of tissue structure. Furthermore, it appeared that the size of a tumor only had consequences on posterior shadowing (p = 0.017). All other features did not show significant variation in relation to tumor size. CONCLUSION: We were able to prove that ultrasound mammography is an excellent medium for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, when precise indication criteria were adhered to, even in cases of small tumor size.
AIM: Ongoing technical progress has increased the accuracy of imaging in ultrasound mammography. Using a 10-MHz-transducer, eight different criteria of dignity were evaluated for validity, also with regard to the size of a tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of three years, 446 breast tumors were ultrasonographically examined by two experienced medical doctors. The study comprised only suspicious lesions detected by mammography and/or manual palpation. Diagnostic validity was quantified by means of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, as well as the ODDS-ratio. RESULTS: Ultrasound mammography demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.0 %, specificity of 91.4 %, positive predictive value of 95.9 %, and a negative predictive value of 99.1 %. Eight different sonographic criteria were validated separately. The most important signs of malignancy were (in descending order): a highly echogenic halo, spikes, jagged contour, posterior acoustic shadowing, and discontinuity of tissue structure. Features of benign disease were: smooth edge, posterior acoustic enhancement, displacement margin, bilateral acoustic shadowing and continuity of tissue structure. Furthermore, it appeared that the size of a tumor only had consequences on posterior shadowing (p = 0.017). All other features did not show significant variation in relation to tumor size. CONCLUSION: We were able to prove that ultrasound mammography is an excellent medium for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, when precise indication criteria were adhered to, even in cases of small tumor size.