Literature DB >> 24780784

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

D C Appleton1, L Hackney, S Narayanan2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Recent guidelines suggest that ultrasonography should be used as the primary imaging modality in women under 40 years of age with mammography being offered if further imaging is required. The aim of this study was to assess the adequacy of ultrasonography and the utility of mammography in this patient group by reviewing the role these imaging techniques had in the diagnosis of breast cancer in our unit.
METHODS: All breast cancers diagnosed in patients 39 years or younger from June 2009 to June 2011 were reviewed. This was a retrospective review of presentation, clinical findings, imaging modality (ultrasonography, mammography, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and histology. Mammography was the primary imaging modality until May 2011 in women between 35 and 39 years of age. Both invasive and intraductal carcinoma were included in the study but lobular carcinoma in situ was excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 2,495 patients were referred to the symptomatic breast clinic in this age group during the study period. Thirty women were identified with either invasive cancer (n=27) or ductal carcinoma in situ (n=3). Twenty-eight patients underwent mammography, graded as uncertain, suspicious or malignant in the majority. Malignancy was missed in one patient. All 30 patients underwent ultrasonography, reported as uncertain, suspicious or malignant, an indication for diagnostic core biopsy. Ultrasonography alone did not miss any cancers but did fail to detect multifocal disease in one patient.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study group, ultrasonography was reliable as the primary imaging modality for women under 40, identifying all cancers in this cohort. Mammography and/or MRI remain essential adjuncts to accurately determine multifocality and/or the extent of disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24780784      PMCID: PMC4474049          DOI: 10.1308/003588414X13824511649896

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  19 in total

1.  Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?

Authors:  Oswald Graf; Thomas H Helbich; Gottfried Hopf; Claudia Graf; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue.

Authors:  S S Kaplan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Julie M Kapp; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta Geller; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Patient age and preoperative breast MRI in women with breast cancer: biopsy and surgical implications.

Authors:  Cameron D Adkisson; Laura A Vallow; Kristin Kowalchik; Rebecca McNeil; Stephanie Hines; Elizabeth Deperi; Alvaro Moreno; Vivek Roy; Edith A Perez; Sarah A McLaughlin
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).

Authors:  M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 21-27       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup.

Authors:  W Buchberger; P DeKoekkoek-Doll; P Springer; P Obrist; M Dünser
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted?

Authors:  Oswald Graf; Thomas H Helbich; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Gottfried Hopf; Margarita Morgun; Claudia Graf; Reinhold Mallek; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Breast cancer in women under 40 years of age: a series of 57 cases from Northern Ireland.

Authors:  B McAree; M E O'Donnell; A Spence; T F Lioe; D T McManus; R A J Spence
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 4.380

10.  The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification.

Authors:  A J Maxwell; N T Ridley; G Rubin; M G Wallis; F J Gilbert; M J Michell
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  2 in total

1.  The use of ultrasonography and digital mammography in women under 40 years with symptomatic breast cancer: a 7-year Irish experience.

Authors:  C E Redmond; G M Healy; C F Murphy; A O'Doherty; A Foster
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  The value of mammography in women with focal breast complaints in addition to initial targeted ultrasound.

Authors:  L Appelman; P T M Appelman; C C N Siebers; P Bult; H L S Go; M Schlooz; R M Mann
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 4.872

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.