Literature DB >> 19485945

Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density.

Emine Devolli-Disha1, Suzana Manxhuka-Kërliu, Halit Ymeri, Arben Kutllovci.   

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second most common cause of death from cancer in women.The aim of this studywas to determine which is more accurate imaging test mammography or ultrasound for diagnosis of breast cancer based on the women's age and breast density. We examined 546 patients with breast symptoms, by clinical breast examination, mammography and ultrasound. A total of 546 breast lesions were examined by histopathology analyses. Histopathology results revealed the presence of 259 invasive cancers, and 287 benign lesions. Sensitivity varied significantly with age and breast density. In the 259 women who had both tests, ultrasound had a higher sensitivity than mammography in women younger than 45 years, whereas mammography had a higher sensitivity than ultrasound in women older than 60 years. The sensitivity according to age was 52,1% for mammography and 72,6% for ultrasound. The specificity according to age was 88, 5% for ultrasound and 73, 9% for mammography. Comparing the sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound according to the breast density indicates that mammographic sensitivity was 82,2% among women with predominantly fatty breast, but 23.7% in women with heterogeneous dense breasts, with the increase of fibro glandular density the level of sensitivity with mammography decreases, while ultrasonographic sensitivity was 71,1% among women with predominantly fatty breast and 57,0% for heterogeneous dense breasts. Our data indicate that sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound was statistically significantly greater than mammography in patients with breast symptoms for the detection of breast cancer and benign lesions particularly in dense breast and in young women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19485945      PMCID: PMC5638217          DOI: 10.17305/bjbms.2009.2832

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci        ISSN: 1512-8601            Impact factor:   3.363


  19 in total

1.  Negative mammographic and US findings do not help exclude breast cancer.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography.

Authors:  H M Zonderland; E G Coerkamp; J Hermans; M J van de Vijver; A E van Voorthuisen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The influence of knowledge of mammography findings on the accuracy of breast ultrasound in symptomatic women.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Les Irwig; Judy M Simpson; Merran McKessar; Steven Blome; Jennie Noakes
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Decision making and counseling around mammography screening for women aged 80 or older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Radhika A Ramanan; Ellen P McCarthy; Edward R Marcantonio
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old.

Authors:  P C Stomper; D J D'Souza; P A DiNitto; M A Arredondo
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  The contribution of ultrasonography to the differential diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  S Ciatto; M Rosselli del Turco; S Catarzi; D Morrone
Journal:  Neoplasma       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 2.575

8.  Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review.

Authors:  Linda Moy; Priscilla J Slanetz; Richard Moore; Sameer Satija; Eren D Yeh; Kathleen A McCarthy; Deborah Hall; Mary Staffa; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Elkan Halpern; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Efficacy of mammographic evaluation of breast cancer in women less than 40 years of age: experience from a single medical center in Taiwan.

Authors:  Jane Wang; King-Jen Chang; Wen-Hung Kuo; Hsiao-Tung Lee; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih
Journal:  J Formos Med Assoc       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.282

View more
  21 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening in a resource poor country: Ultrasound versus mammography.

Authors:  Olubukola At Omidiji; Princess C Campbell; Nicholas K Irurhe; Omolola M Atalabi; Oluyemisi O Toyobo
Journal:  Ghana Med J       Date:  2017-03

2.  Reported breast symptoms in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  A Blythe Ryerson; Jacqueline Miller; Christie R Eheman
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 3.  What is new in computer vision and artificial intelligence in medical image analysis applications.

Authors:  Jimena Olveres; Germán González; Fabian Torres; José Carlos Moreno-Tagle; Erik Carbajal-Degante; Alejandro Valencia-Rodríguez; Nahum Méndez-Sánchez; Boris Escalante-Ramírez
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-08

4.  Ultrasonography alone for diagnosis of breast cancer in women under 40.

Authors:  D C Appleton; L Hackney; S Narayanan
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Axial-shear strain imaging for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses.

Authors:  Haiyan Xu; Min Rao; Tomy Varghese; Amy Sommer; Sara Baker; Timothy J Hall; Gale A Sisney; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Performance assessment of MRI guided continuous wave near-infrared spectral tomography for breast imaging.

Authors:  Jinchao Feng; Shudong Jiang; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 3.732

8.  Enhancing the Screening Efficiency of Breast Cancer by Combining Conventional Medical Imaging Examinations With Circulating Tumor Cells.

Authors:  Yang Gao; Wan-Hung Fan; Chaohui Duan; Wenhe Zhao; Jun Zhang; Xixiong Kang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Clinical Factors Associated with Asymptomatic Women Having Inconclusive Screening Mammography Results: Experiences from a Single Medical Center in Taiwan.

Authors:  Chun-Li Wang; Pi-Shan Hsu; Chia-Yen Lin; Shun-Fa Yang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Are both ultrasonography and mammography necessary for cancer investigation of breast lumps in resource-limited countries?

Authors:  Rungnapa Chairat; Adisorn Puttisri; Asani Pamarapa; Sahatham Samintharapanya; Chamaiporn Tawichasri; Jayanton Patumanond
Journal:  ISRN Oncol       Date:  2013-08-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.