medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2024, Number 04

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2024; 92 (04)

Benign mammographic findings that simulate malignancy: a diagnostic dilemma

Santiago SL, González-Sandoval DA, Meléndez OA, Rendón MME, Cisneros VSA

Language: Spanish
References: 68
Page: 153-168
PDF size: 451.73 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To identify the main benign histopathological findings that often cause conflict when categorizing mastographies in the BI-RADS system due to their appearance, which may simulate a malignant process and false positive rate.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study carried out in patients attended at the Unidad Médica de Alta Especialidad 4 Luis Castelazo Ayala (2019-2023) with an altered mastographic report or clinical suspicion of malignancy. For statistical analysis we used the JASP 2.0 programme and χ2 for the difference in proportions between groups.
Results: From a group of 11,481 patients, 1,643 altered mastograms were reported: 444 with false positive reports, 23 patients with clinical suspicion and exclusion of 16 who did not meet the established inclusion criteria. The population sample studied was 451 patients. The majority remained asymptomatic at the time of the study (42.1%). The most prevalent benign histopathological finding was fibroadenoma and the most relevant symptom was a palpable nodule. The false positive rate was 4.3%.
Conclusions: Currently, thanks to the implementation of screening programmes it is possible to establish breast cancer diagnoses in early stages, although with the disadvantage that the report may be false positive and this may lead to increased morbidity and overtreatment. International standards indicate that these should not exceed 10%.


REFERENCES

  1. Wojtyla C, Bertuccio P, Ciebiera M, Vecchia C La. Breastcancer mortality in the americas and australasia overthe period 1980–2017 with predictions for 2025. Biology(Basel) 2021;10 (8): 1-14. http://doi.org/10.3390/biology10080814

  2. Houghton SC, Hankinson SE. Cancer progress and priorities:Breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2021; 30 (5): 822-44. http://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1193

  3. Zavala VA, Serrano-Gomez SJ, Dutil J, Fejerman L. Geneticepidemiology of breast cancer in Latin America. Genes (Basel)2019; 10 (2). http://doi.org/10.3390/genes10020153

  4. Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer asa global health concern. Br J Radiol 2022; 95 (1130): 7-9.http://doi.org/10.1259/BJR.20211033

  5. World Health Organization. Mexico Source: Globocan 2020.Int Agency Res Cancer WHO. 2020;929:1-2. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/484-mexicofact-sheets.pdf

  6. Cazap E. Breast Cancer in Latin America: A Map of theDisease in the Region. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ B 2018; (38):451-56. http://doi.org/10.1200/edbk_201315

  7. de Almeida LM, Cortés S, Vilensky M, et al. Socioeconomic,Clinical, and Molecular Features of Breast Cancer InfluenceOverall Survival of Latin American Women. FrontOncol 2022; 12 (March): 1-15. http://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.845527

  8. Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, et al. Current and futureburden of breast cancer: Global statistics for 2020and 2040. Breast 2022; 66 (August): 15-23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2022.08.010

  9. Arceo-Martínez MT, López-Meza JE, Ochoa-Zarzosa A,Palomera-Sanchez Z. Estado actual del cáncer de mamaen México: principales tipos y factores de riesgo. Gac MexOncol 2021; 20 (3): 101-10. http://doi.org/10.24875/j.gamo.21000134

  10. Doede AL, Mitchell EM, Wilson D, Panagides R, Oriá MOB.Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about breast cancerscreening in Latin America and the Caribbean: An in-depthnarrative review. J Glob Oncol 2018; 1 (4). http://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.18.00053

  11. Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, et al. Breast CancerScreening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women atAverage Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of BreastImaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2021; 18 (9): 1280-88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021

  12. Ho PJ, Bok CM, Mohd Ishak HM, et al. Factors associatedwith false-positive mammography at first screen in anAsian population. PLoS One 2019; 14 (3): 1-16. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213615

  13. Fatima K, Masroor I, Khanani S. Probably benign solidbreast lesions on ultrasound: Need for biopsy reassessed.Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2018; 19 (12): 3467-71. http://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2018.19.12.3467

  14. Miller BC, Bowers JM, Payne JB, Moyer A. Barriers tomammography screening among racial and ethnic minoritywomen. Soc Sci Med 2019; 239: 112494. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112494

  15. Solikhah S, Promthet S, Hurst C. Awareness level aboutbreast cancer risk factors, barriers, attitude and breastcancer screening among Indonesian women. Asian Pacific JCancer Prev 2019; 20 (3): 877-84. http://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.3.877

  16. Wang Y, Li Y, Song Y, et al. Comparison of ultrasound andmammography for early diagnosis of breast cancer amongChinese women with suspected breast lesions: A prospectivetrial. Thorac Cancer. 2022; 13 (22): 3145-51. http://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14666

  17. Honig EL, Mullen LA, Amir T, et al. Factors ImpactingFalse Positive Recall in Screening Mammography. AcadRadiol. 2019;26(11):1505-1512. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.01.020

  18. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT, et al. Digital mammographyversus digital mammography plus tomosynthesisin breast cancer screening: The Oslo tomosynthesisscreening trial. Radiology. 2019;291(1):23-30. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182394

  19. Lei S, Zheng R, Zhang S, et al. Global patterns of breastcancer incidence and mortality: A population-based cancerregistry data analysis from 2000 to 2020. Cancer Commun.

  20. 2021;41(11):1183-1194. http://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.1220720. El Hachem Z, Zoghbi M, Hallit S. Psychosocial consequencesof false-positive results in screening mammography. J FamMed Prim Care 2019; 8 (4): 19-25. http://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_4_17

  21. Seely JM, Alhassan T. Screening for breast cancer in2018 -what should we be doing today? Curr Oncol.2018;25(June):S115-S124. http://doi.org/10..3747/co.25.3770

  22. Løberg M, Lousdal ML, Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Benefitsand harms of mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res.2015;17(1):1-12. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-015-0525-z

  23. Castro M, Cobos MP, Saquis F, Luna G. Lesiones benignasde mama que pueden simular un carcinoma. Rev ArgentinaRadiol. 2011;75(1):27-32. http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/rar/v75n1/v75n1a07.pdf

  24. Kim G, Mercaldo S, Bahl M. Impact of digital breast tomosynthesis(DBT) on finding types leading to true-positiveand false-positive examinations. Clin Imaging. 2021;71:155-59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.10.046

  25. Lee J, Arao R, Sprague B. Performance of screening ultrasonographyas an adjunct to screening mammography inwomen across the spectrum of breast cancer risk. JAMAIntern Med 2019; 179 (5): 658-68. http://doi.org/10.1001/ja mainternmed.2018.8372

  26. Parada-Gallardo A, Preciado-Vargas J, Amezcua-GalvezJE, Juarez-Lopez GE. Benign breast lesions mimickingmalignancy: a pictorial essay. J Mex Fed Radiol Imaging.2022;1(4):247-58. http://doi.org/10.24875/jmexfri.m22000034

  27. Iglesias A, Arias M, Santiago P, Rodríguez M, Mañas J, SaboridoC. Benign Breast Lesions that Simulate Malignancy:Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Radiologic-PathologicCorrelation. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2007;36(2):66-82.http://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2006.12.001

  28. Kashyap D, Pal D, Sharma R, et al. Global Increase inBreast Cancer Incidence: Risk Factors and PreventiveMeasures. Biomed Res Int 2022; 2022. http://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9605439

  29. Sun YS, Zhao Z, Yang ZN, et al. Risk factors and preventionsof breast cancer. Int J Biol Sci 2017; 13 (11): 1387-97. http://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.21635

  30. Subramani R, Lakshmanaswamy R. Pregnancy andBreast Cancer. Vol 151. Elsevier Inc.; 2017. http://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2017.07.006

  31. Migliavacca Zucchetti B, Peccatori FA, Codacci-PisanelliG. Pregnancy and lactation: Risk or protective factors forbreast cancer? Adv Exp Med Biol 2020; 1252: 195-97.http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41596-9_27

  32. Isabel R, Piza S, Morales BJ, Sierra López S, Salgado JiménezM de los Á, Rodríguez Echeverría G. Características epidemiológicas,radiológicas e histológicas de cáncer de mamaen usuarias de un hospital general regional en Guerrero,México. México Aten Fam 2022; 29 (1): 20-24. http://doi.org/10.22201/fm.14058871p.2022.1.81186

  33. Barzaman K, Karami J, Zarei Z, et al. Breast cancer: Biology,biomarkers, and treatments. Int Immunopharmacol 2020;84. (http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106535

  34. Hubbard TJE, Sharma A, Ferguson DJ. Breast pain: Assessment,management, and referral criteria. Br J GenPract 2020; 70 (697): 419-420. http://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X712133

  35. Adni LLA, Norhayati MN, Rosli RRM, Muhammad J. Asystematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy ofevening primrose oil for mastalgia treatment. Int J EnvironRes Public Health. 2021;18(12). http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126295

  36. Dave R V., Bromley H, Taxiarchi VP, et al. No association betweenbreast pain and breast cancer: a prospective cohortstudy of 10 830 symptomatic women presenting to a breastcancer diagnostic clinic. Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72(717):E234-E243. http://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2021.0475

  37. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-riskwomen. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(122):1-16.

  38. Helvie MA, Bevers TB. Screening mammography foraverage-risk women: The controversy and NCCN’s position.JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16(11):1398-1404.http://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.7081

  39. Martin K, Vogel RI, Nagler RH, et al. Mammography ScreeningPractices in Average-Risk Women Aged 40-49 Years inPrimary Care: A Comparison of Physician and NonphysicianProviders in Minnesota. J Women’s Heal. 2020;29(1):91-99.http://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7436

  40. Lanta Q, Arveux P, Asselain B. Epidemiology and socioculturalspecificities of young women with breast cancer.Bull Cancer. 2019;106(12):S4-S9. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-4551(20)30041-2

  41. Amir T, Hogan MP, Jacobs S, Sevilimedu V, Sung J, Jochelson MS.Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings onContrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography. Am J Roentgenol.2022;218(5):797-808. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.21.26847

  42. Taskin F, Durum Y, Soyder A, Unsal A. Review and managementof breast lesions detected with breast tomosynthesisbut not visible on mammography and ultrasonography.Acta radiol. 2017;58(12):1442-1447. http://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117710681

  43. Martaindale S. Breast cancer screening: Helping patientsnavigate recommendations. Breast J. 2021;27(5):421-422.http://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.14236

  44. García-Luna KJ, Ocampo-Ramírez JD, Pardo-Bustamante Mdel P, Ruiz-Villa CA, Castaño-Vélez AP. Criterios, métodosy guías de análisis y evaluación para el control de calidadde la imagen y lectura de la mamografía: una revisiónmeta-narrativa. Rev An Radiol México. 2019;18(2):108-118.http://doi.org/10.24875/arm.19000125

  45. Mann RM, Hooley R, Barr RG, Moy L. Novel approaches toscreening for breast cancer. Radiology. 2020;297(2):266-285. http://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2020200172

  46. Jatoi I, Pinsky PF. Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpointsand Overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(9):1131-1135. http://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa140

  47. Brewer N, Salz T, Lillie S. Systematic Review: The Long-TermEffects of False-Positive Mammograms. Ann Intern Med.2007;146(1):350-358.

  48. Uscanga-Sánchez S, Torres-Mejía G, Ángeles-Llerenas A,Domínguez-Malpica R, Lazcano-Ponce E. Indicadores delproceso de tamizaje de cáncer de mama en México: unestudio de caso. Salud Publica Mex. 2014;56(5):528-537.http://doi.org/10.21149/spm.v56i5.7378

  49. Maes-Carballo M, Gómez-Fandiño Y, Reinoso-Hermida A,et al. Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematicreview. Breast. 2021;59:221-231. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.06.013

  50. Rauscher G, Murphy AM, Orsi J, Dupuy D, Grabler P,Weldon C. Beyond MQSA: Measuring the quality ofbreast cancer screening programs. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2014;202(1):145-151. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10806.Beyond

  51. Dabbous F, Dolecek T, Berbaum M, et al. Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent ScreeningBehavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis. CancerEpidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(3):397-403. http://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965

  52. Castro-Ibarra M, Menchaca-Díaz R, Jesús Cabrales-Ruvalcaba J, Rosa RA. Resultado falso positivo en lamamografía y su asociación con la presencia de obesidad:Un estudio de casos y controles. Gac Med Mex.2016;152(4):503-507.

  53. Kim HE, Kim HH, Han BK, et al. Changes in cancer detectionand false-positive recall in mammography using artificialintelligence: a retrospective, multireader study. LancetDigit Heal. 2020;2(3):e138-e148. http://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30003-0

  54. Ventura-Alfaro CE. Errores de medición en la interpretaciónmamográfica por radiólogos. Rev Salud Publica.2018;20(4):518-522. http://doi.org/10.15446/rsap.V20n4.52035

  55. Mello-Thoms C, Dunn SM, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. Ananalysis of perceptual errors in reading mammogramsusing quasi-local spatial frequency spectra. J Digit Imaging.2001;14(3):117-123. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-001-0010-3

  56. Lamb LR, Fonseca MM, Verma R, Seely JM. Missed breastcancer: Effects of subconscious bias and lesion characteristics.Radiographics. 2020;40(4):941-960. http://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2020190090

  57. Sánchez JC, Rocha JEB, Piña VB, et al. Consenso Mexicanosobre diagnóstico y tratamiento del cancer mamario.Gac Mex Oncol 2017;16(Supl 3):7-78. http://doi.org/10.24875/j.gamo.m21000213

  58. Guirguis MS, Adrada B, Santiago L, Candelaria R, ArribasE. Mimickers of breast malignancy: imaging findings,pathologic concordance and clinical management. InsightsImaging 2021; 12 (1). http://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00991-x

  59. Santiago-Sanabria L, Garza-Arrieta J, Tesone-Lasman JE,Benardete-Harari DN, Cortés-Rubio JL. Mastitis granulomatosa:una simuladora de cáncer, un gran reto diagnósticoy terapéutico. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2022; 90 (5): 448-55.http://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v90i5.6954

  60. Cho SH, Park SH. Mimickers of breast malignancy on breastsonography. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32 (11): 2029-36.http://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.32.11.2029

  61. Chan HHL, Lam TPW, Yuen JHF, Leong LLY. Conditions thatmimic primary breast carcinoma on mammography andsonography. J Hong Kong Coll Radiol 2004; 7 (1): 49-55.

  62. Santiago-Sanabria L, López-Valle MÁ, Garza-Arrieta J,Islas-Tezpa D. Tumor filodes bilateral, una rara forma demanifestación clínica: reporte de caso. Ginecol ObstetMex 2022; 90 (11): 933-41. http://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v90i11.6977

  63. Spruill L. Benign mimickers of malignant breast lesions.Semin Diagn Pathol 2016; 33 (1): 2-12. http://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2015.09.002

  64. Pojchamarnwiputh S, Muttarak M, Na-ChiangMai W,Chaiwun B. Benign breast lesions mimicking carcinoma atmammography. Singapore Med J 2007; 48 (10). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17909685/

  65. Urano M, Nishikawa H, Goto T, et al. Digital mammographicfeatures of breast cancer recurrences and benign lesionsmimicking malignancy following breast-conserving surgeryand radiation therapy. Kurume Med J 2018; 65 (4): 113-21.http://doi.org/10.2739/kurumemedj.MS654005

  66. Torous VF, Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Benign breast lesions thatmimic malignancy. Pathology 2017; 49 (2): 181-96. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2016.12.002

  67. Cohen MA, Newell MS. Radial scars of the breastencountered at core biopsy: Review of histologic,imaging, and management considerations. Am J Roentgenol2017; 209 (5): 1168-77. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18156

  68. Ferre R, Kuzmiak CM. Radial Scar: what the radiologistneeds to know in 2021. Arch Breast Cancer 2022; 9 (1):4-9. http://doi.org/10.32768/abc.2022914-9




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com