García-Quintanilla JF, González-Coronado SI, Gascón-Montante A, Hernández-Beltrán L, Barrera-López F, Lavín-Ayala R

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 205-213
PDF size: 457.10 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objetive: analyze the usefulness of ultrasound in detection of breast cancer, at a mammary gland imaging center, focusing primarily on nodules not seen in digital mammograms and tomosynthesis, in a prospective study of 1,600 mammograms for screening.
Introduction: the mammogram, in its analogic or digital mode, is well known as an effective imaging method for early detection of breast cancer and the only screening method which proven to reduce mortality from breast cancer; however, superimposition of mammary tissue, added to its high density, are obstacles to interpreting and detecting lesions even when using digital mammogram by tomosynthesis, for which reason complementary use of ultrasound is imperative to detect lesions.
Material and Method: 1,600 asymptomatic patients who took part in a screening study to detect mammary gland cancer, in an age range of 40 to 65 years, were included. All of them underwent digital mammogram, tomosynthesis, and ultrasound, including in this report only those in whom BIRADS category 3 and 4 nodules detected by ultrasound were confirmed, without representation or not seen in digital mammograms or tomosynthesis. All the studies were evaluated by 5 radiologists with sub-specialization in mammary imaging.
Results: of 1,600 patients, BIRADS category 3 and 4 nodules were confirmed in 270, 52 of them detected only by ultrasound and not seen by digital mammogram or tomosynthesis.
Conclusion: in a dense breast there are greater probabilities of overlooking calcifications, asymmetries, or nodules in digital mammogram or tomosynthesis, which underscores the importance of adding ultrasound to mammogram screening.

REFERENCES

1. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267(1):47–56.

2. Pragya A. Dang, et al. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on interpretation, Radiology Volume 270 -1- January 2014.

3. Advances in breast ultrasound, Heino Hille, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hamburg, Germany. www.interchopen.com

4. Barr R et al. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk of breast malignancy, Radiology Volume 269:3-2013.

5. BIRADS, Breast Imaging Report and Data System, ACR 2013. 5- Ed.

6. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42(5):845–851.

7. Ganau S, Ortega R, Master de Senología U de Barcelona 2015. Comunicado.

8. Santamaría G. Master de Senología U de Barcelona 2015. Comunicado.

9. Phoebe E. Feer, Mammographic breast density: Impact on breast cancer and implications for screening, Radiographics 2015; 35;302-315.

10. Stavros T. Breast ultrasound, t book, 2004 edit Lippincot.

11. Sentíes M Master de Senología U de Barcelona 2015.

12. Wenxiang Zhi et al Solid breast lesions: Clinical experience with US. Radiology, 262:2-2012.

13. Buchberger y Renzo Brun del Re, editor en Minimally invasive breast biopsies Springer 2009

14. Winckler et al Breast density and clinical implications. Radiographics 2015,35-2.

15. Min Sun Bae et al. Breast cancer detector with screening US. Reasons for non-detection at mammography. Radiology Volume 270:2-2014.