Torres RH, Silva LLM, Tenorio FE, Ríos RN

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 114-120
PDF size: 220.95 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In Mexico 11 thousand new cases of breast cancer diagnosed each year. Mammography remains the best screening method; however, the rate of false negatives can reach 10%, for which reason it is necessary to complement it with other imaging methods, or even correlate findings histopathologically. Febles, Ricci, Rosales and Martin have studied the form of radiological presentation and the histopathological correlation of mammary lesions. In breast cancer, clinical and radiological findings lack a definitive determination; histopathology is necessary to know the final diagnosis pointing to the most appropriate therapeutic decision in each case based on the patient’s clinical status and histological type.
Objective: Establish the histopathological correlation of all studies classified as BI-RADS 4, 5, and 6, over 1 year, in the Hospital General de Mexico Mammary Imaging Department. Material and methods: A retrospective, longitudinal study of cases classified as BI-RADS 4, 5, and 6, on the morning shift at the Hospital General de Mexico Mammary Imaging Department, from October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011. Sample of 139 patients with histopathological result, localization by quadrant, most frequent form of presentation, and hereditary and gyneco-obstetric antecedents.
Results: Of BI-RADS 4A patients, 26% had histopathological report of malignancy, 63% of BI-RADS 4B patients, and 83% of BI-RADS 4C patients. Malignant histopathological report in 85 of 139 patients (83% ≥ 40 years and 17% ≤ 40 years). One of the most representative findings was confirmed report of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Conclusions: The study shows increased frequency of breast cancer over a very long time period (23-90 years), more evident in the under-40 population. Categories 4A and 4B presented percentages of malignancy higher than those reported in the literature, infiltrating ductal carcinoma, superoexternal quadrant, and nodular lesion were the predominant variables.

REFERENCES

1. NOM-041-SSA2-2011 Para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer de mama, DOF Segunda Sección (Junio 09, 2011). 61-101.

2. American College of Radiology, Mammography and Ultrasound. In Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas, 4th Ed, Reston, VA: American college of Radiology, 2003. pp. 3-127;5-79.

3. Febles G, Parada J, Folle E. Localización de las lesiones mamarias subclínicas con marcador metálico (arponaje): análisis de los márgenes quirúrgicos, Rev Med Urug 2010;26:84-91.

4. Ricci P, Cruz A, Rodríguez M, et al. Microcalcificaciones BIRADS 4: Experiencia de 12 años, Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 2006;71(6):388-393.

5. Rosales R, Aguilar L, Pupo I, Estévez E. Características imagenológicas de la lesión de mama en pacientes atendidas en el Centro Diagnóstico Integral Carrizal de Venezuela, CCM 2011;15(1).

6. Martin J, Sandoval F, Rios N, Isaza I. Biopsia de lesiones mamarias no palpables mediante marcaje con arpón guiado por estereotaxia, Anales de Rad Mex 2003;1:23-27.

7. Tabar L, Tot T, Dean P. Cáncer de mama: Arte y ciencia de la detección temprana mediante mamografía. Percepción, interpretación y correlación histopatológica, Buenos Aires, Arg Journal, 2006.

8. Silva L, Ríos N. Estudio mamario integral en el Hospital General de México: frecuencia y clasificación BI-RADS. Experiencia de un año, Anales de Rad Mex 2011;2:91-97.

9. Díaz C, Barroso M, Vázquez E. Linfoma de Hodgkin primario de la mama. Presentación de 6 casos y revisión de la literatura, Rev Cubana Oncol 2001;17(3):210-6.

10. Feder J, Shaw E, Hogge J, Wilken J. Unusual Breast Lesions: Radiologic- Pathologic Correlation, Radiographis 1999;19:S11-26.

11. Rostagno R, Castro M, Mama Avances en Diagnóstico por Imágenes, 1ª Ed. Buenos Aires, Arg Colegio Interamericano de Radiología, 2010.

12. Calderón-Garcidueñas AL, Parás- Barrientos FU, Cárdenas-Ibarra, et al. Risk factors of breast cáncer in Mexican women, Salud Pública Mex 2000;42:26-33.

13. Peralta O. Cáncer de mama en Chile, Datos epidemiológicos, Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 2002;67(6):439-445.