C A Pistolese1, T Perretta, E Cossu, F Della Gatta, S Giura, G Simonetti. 1. Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Imaging Molecolare, Radiologia Interventistica e Terapia Radiante, Università degli studi di Roma Tor Vergata (PTV), Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Roma, Italy. chiarapistolese@gmail.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the role of the correct diagnostic pathway through conventional imaging in evaluating breast disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six hundred patients aged between 35 and 75 years were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent detailed history and clinical examination, ultrasound (US) and mammography. US scans were repeated after mammography. All suspicious lesions were studied by cytological and histological characterisation and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. RESULTS: The first US scan showed 147 solid lesions, 67 lesions characterised by posterior acoustic shadowing and 193 areas of heterogeneous echostructure. The second US scan, performed after mammography, confirmed 123/147 solid nodular lesions, 53/67 lesions characterised by posterior acoustic shadowing and 183/193 areas of heterogeneous echostructure; it also showed 13 nodular lesions not seen on the first scan and two cases of nodular lesions with irregular calcifications. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that US not performed in conjunction with mammography gives rise to incorrect diagnostic interpretations (either false positive or false negative results). The detection rate of the US scan performed after mammography increases from 4.16% to 5.5%.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the role of the correct diagnostic pathway through conventional imaging in evaluating breast disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six hundred patients aged between 35 and 75 years were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent detailed history and clinical examination, ultrasound (US) and mammography. US scans were repeated after mammography. All suspicious lesions were studied by cytological and histological characterisation and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. RESULTS: The first US scan showed 147 solid lesions, 67 lesions characterised by posterior acoustic shadowing and 193 areas of heterogeneous echostructure. The second US scan, performed after mammography, confirmed 123/147 solid nodular lesions, 53/67 lesions characterised by posterior acoustic shadowing and 183/193 areas of heterogeneous echostructure; it also showed 13 nodular lesions not seen on the first scan and two cases of nodular lesions with irregular calcifications. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that US not performed in conjunction with mammography gives rise to incorrect diagnostic interpretations (either false positive or false negative results). The detection rate of the US scan performed after mammography increases from 4.16% to 5.5%.
Authors: Song-Ee Baek; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Ji Hyun Youk; Hye-Jeong Lee; Eun Ju Son Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M McCavert; M E O'Donnell; S Aroori; S A Badger; M A Sharif; J G Crothers; R A J Spence Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 2.503
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
Authors: Chiara Adriana Pistolese; Anna Micaela Ciarrapico; Francesca della Gatta; Giovanni Simonetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 3.469