Olubukola At Omidiji1, Princess C Campbell2, Nicholas K Irurhe1, Omolola M Atalabi3, Oluyemisi O Toyobo4. 1. Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy, Radiodiagnosis and Radiography, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria. 2. Department of Community Medicine and Primary Care, College of Medicine University of Lagos, Nigeria. 3. Department of Radiodiagnosis, College of Medicine University of Ibadan/University College Hospital, Ibadan. Oyo State Nigeria. 4. Department of Radiology, Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital, Ogun State, Nigeria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the commonest female cancer in Nigeria. Despite its increased awareness, affordability of available screening tools is a bane. Mammography, the goal standard for screening is costly and not widely available in terms of infrastructure, technical/personnel capabilities. Ultrasound is accessible and affordable. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the use of ultrasound and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women in South West Nigeria by characterizing and comparing the prevalent breast parenchyma, breast cancer features and the independent sensitivity of ultrasound and mammography. METHODS: This cross sectional comparative descriptive study used both ultrasound and mammography as screening tools in 300 consenting women aged 30 to 60 years who attended a free breast cancer screening campaign in a tertiary hospital in Lagos. Categorical variables were presented in tables and Chi squares for associations P-value set at ± 0.1. RESULTS: Mean age was 41.01 + 6.5years with majority in the 30 - 39 year age group 139 (55%). Fatty (BIRADS A and B) parenchyma predominated {ultrasound 237 (79%); mammography 233 (77.7%)} in all age groups. 7 (2.3%) were confirmed malignant by histology with (6) in the 30-39 age group and (1) in the 40-49 age group. Ultrasound detected all the confirmed cases 7(100%), whereas mammography detected 6 (85%). Sensitivity was higher using ultrasound (100%) than mammography (85.7%). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound can be utilized as a first line of screening especially in remote/rural areas in developing world. FUNDING: Part funding from Run for Cure governmental organization.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancer is the commonest female cancer in Nigeria. Despite its increased awareness, affordability of available screening tools is a bane. Mammography, the goal standard for screening is costly and not widely available in terms of infrastructure, technical/personnel capabilities. Ultrasound is accessible and affordable. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the use of ultrasound and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women in South West Nigeria by characterizing and comparing the prevalent breast parenchyma, breast cancer features and the independent sensitivity of ultrasound and mammography. METHODS: This cross sectional comparative descriptive study used both ultrasound and mammography as screening tools in 300 consenting women aged 30 to 60 years who attended a free breast cancer screening campaign in a tertiary hospital in Lagos. Categorical variables were presented in tables and Chi squares for associations P-value set at ± 0.1. RESULTS: Mean age was 41.01 + 6.5years with majority in the 30 - 39 year age group 139 (55%). Fatty (BIRADS A and B) parenchyma predominated {ultrasound 237 (79%); mammography 233 (77.7%)} in all age groups. 7 (2.3%) were confirmed malignant by histology with (6) in the 30-39 age group and (1) in the 40-49 age group. Ultrasound detected all the confirmed cases 7(100%), whereas mammography detected 6 (85%). Sensitivity was higher using ultrasound (100%) than mammography (85.7%). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound can be utilized as a first line of screening especially in remote/rural areas in developing world. FUNDING: Part funding from Run for Cure governmental organization.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast Cancer; Mammography; Sensitivity; Ultrasound; Women
Authors: Elima Jedy-Agba; Maria Paula Curado; Olufemi Ogunbiyi; Emmanuel Oga; Toyin Fabowale; Festus Igbinoba; Gloria Osubor; Theresa Otu; Henry Kumai; Alice Koechlin; Patience Osinubi; Patrick Dakum; William Blattner; Clement A Adebamowo Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Clement A Adebamowo; Frank B Hu; Eunyoung Cho; Donna Spiegelman; Michelle D Holmes; Walter C Willett Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Zhengjia Chen; Anna H Wu; W James Gauderman; Leslie Bernstein; Huiyan Ma; Malcolm C Pike; Giske Ursin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-01-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Joseph A Pinto; Luis Pinillos; Cynthia Villarreal-Garza; Zaida Morante; Manuel V Villarán; Gerson Mejía; Christian Caglevic; Alfredo Aguilar; Williams Fajardo; Franz Usuga; Marcia Carrasco; Pamela Rebaza; Ana M Posada; Indira Tirado-Hurtado; Claudio Flores; Carlos S Vallejos Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2019-01-22
Authors: Rupali Sood; Anne F Rositch; Delaram Shakoor; Emily Ambinder; Kara-Lee Pool; Erica Pollack; Daniel J Mollura; Lisa A Mullen; Susan C Harvey Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2019-08