Literature DB >> 12646433

Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications.

Mary Scott Soo1, Jay A Baker, Eric L Rosen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of sonography to depict and guide biopsies of mammographically suspicious microcalcifications and to reveal the mammographic features and histologic outcomes of lesions amenable to sonographically guided biopsy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: . Suspicious clusters of microcalcifications without other mammographic abnormalities were evaluated on sonography before biopsy and divided into two groups: those with and those without microcalcifications seen on sonography. Sonographically detected lesions underwent sonographically guided biopsy; lesions not seen on sonography underwent mammographically guided biopsy. Imaging features and histologies were correlated, and the positive predictive value of sonography was determined.
RESULTS: Of 111 lesions (105 patients), 26 lesions (23%) were identified and underwent sonographically guided biopsy; 85 lesions (77%) were not identified sonographically. The diameters of microcalcification clusters in the sonographically identified group were significantly larger (p = 0.0005) and contained larger numbers of microcalcification particles (p = 0.038) compared with clusters not identified sonographically. Sonographically identified lesions were seen as masses (77%) or dilated ducts (23%) with echogenic foci. Sonographically identified lesions were more likely to be malignant than those not seen on sonography (69% vs 21%, respectively; p < 0.00002). Of 38 malignant lesions, those visible on sonography were more likely to be invasive than those not seen on sonography (72% vs 28%, respectively; p = 0.018). In malignant lesions undergoing core biopsy and surgical excision, the extent of disease was underestimated less with sonographically guided biopsy (7%, 1/15) than with stereotactic biopsy (33%, 5/15).
CONCLUSION: Suspicious microcalcifications are seen infrequently on sonography (23%) but, when detected, can be successfully biopsied with sonographic guidance and more frequently are malignant and represent invasive cancer than those seen on mammography alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12646433     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800941

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  35 in total

1.  Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade.

Authors:  Geunwon Kim; Peter G Mikhael; Tawakalitu O Oseni; Manisha Bahl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Study of the performance of a novel 1 mm resolution dual-panel PET camera design dedicated to breast cancer imaging using Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  Jin Zhang; Peter D Olcott; Garry Chinn; Angela M K Foudray; Craig S Levine
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Role of ultrasound and sonographically guided core biopsy in the diagnostic evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast.

Authors:  V Londero; C Zuiani; A Furlan; J Nori; M Bazzocchi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Real-time US elastography in the differentiation of suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.

Authors:  Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon; Jeong-Seon Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Development of array piezoelectric fingers towards in vivo breast tumor detection.

Authors:  Xin Xu; Youngsoo Chung; Ari D Brooks; Wei-Heng Shih; Wan Y Shih
Journal:  Rev Sci Instrum       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.523

6.  Radiologic-pathological correlation of punctate hyperechoic foci by ultrasound in stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy samples.

Authors:  Hiroko Okazaki; Fumio Tsujimoto; Ichirou Maeda; Tomoyuki Ohta; Yoshihide Kanemaki; Kyoko Okamoto; Hiroshi Shimamoto; Yukari Yabuki; Haruki Ogata; Tomohiko Ohta; Mamoru Fukuda; Yasuo Nakajima
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-25       Impact factor: 2.374

7.  Breast US in patients with breast cancer presenting as only microcalcifications on mammography: can US differentiate ductal carcinoma in situ from invasive cancer?

Authors:  Ji-Yeon Han; Jin Hwa Lee; Eun-Kyung Kim; Suyoung Shin; Myong Jin Kang; Keun-Cheol Lee; Kyung Jin Nam
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 1.314

8.  Geographic variation and physician specialization in the use of percutaneous biopsy for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Claire M B Holloway; Refik Saskin; Lawrence Paszat
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 9.  Supplementary screening sonography in mammographically dense breast: pros and cons.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Youk; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 10.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review.

Authors:  Monika Nothacker; Volker Duda; Markus Hahn; Mathias Warm; Friedrich Degenhardt; Helmut Madjar; Susanne Weinbrenner; Ute-Susann Albert
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-09-20       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.