Sánchez-Montaño M, Zatarain-Bayliss L, Peñuelas-Vargas CE, González-Fernández MA

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 339-344
PDF size: 315.91 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Diagnosis of BI-RADS category 4A, 4B, 4C, or 5 mammary lesions, by mammogram or echography, suggests the possibility of malignancy in different percentages, for which a biopsy is indicated by the BI-RADS system of the American College of Radiology. It is an invasive procedure which generates additional costs for the patient and the institution. However, the number of breast cancer diagnoses confirmed by histopathology, by means of biopsies of mammary lesions categorized based on image studies as BI-RADS 4A, 4B, 4C, or 5 performed at Hospital Civil in Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico, is unknown.
Objetive: determine what percentage of mammary lesions categorized by image studies as BI-RADS 4A, 4B, 4C, o 5 were confirmed as malignant lesions based on histopathological results.
Methodology: a transverse, observational study, with retrospective data collection.
Results: in the period from May 2013 to December 2015, 251 biopsies of mammary lesions categorized by image studies as BIRADS 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 were performed. Histopathological results were compared with prior image diagnoses, finding a percentage of malignancy of 4.2% for BI-RADS category 4A lesions, 20.4% for category 4B lesions, 30.7% for category 4C, and 100% malignancy for category 5 lesions.
Conclusions: these percentages coincide with those established by the American College of Radiology, except only a smaller percentage of malignant lesions in category 4C, which was not statistically significant because it presented a confidence interval within the range established for that category. This suggests an adequate image-histopathological correlation at our center, placing it within international parameters for quality and other reference image centers.

REFERENCES

1. Diagnóstico y tratamiento del Cáncer de Mama en segundo y tercer nivel de atención. Evidencias y Recomendaciones. Guías de Práctica Clínica IMSS-232-09.

2. O. Martínez-Montaño, P. Uribe-Zuñiga. Políticas públicas para la detección del cáncer de mama en México. Salud Publica Mex 2009;51(supl 2):S350-s360.

3. María Estere Brandan, Yolanda Villaseñor. Detección de Cáncer de Mama: Estado de la mamografía en México. Cancerología 1 (2006):147-162.

4. A. Franco, Ma. García, M. Gorráez. Biopsias de mama con aguja gruesa guiada por estereotaxia. Experiencia en el CMN 20 de Noviembre del ISSSTE. Anales de Radiología México 2011;2:69-74.

5. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, et al. Atlas BI-RADS del ACR, Sistema normalizado para la redacción de informes de estudios por imágenes de la mama. American College of Radiology; 2013.

6. N. Cerrato, L. Lopez. Correlación radiológico-patológica de las biopsias de mama realizadas en el Centro Médico ABC. Anales de Radiología México 2005;4:305-310.

7. Arce et al. Oncoguia, Cáncer de Mama. Cancerología 6 (2011):77-86

8. S. Parker, F. Burbank, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: A multi-institutional study. Radiology November 1994. Vol 193. Number 2. 359-364.

9. J. Cardenas, E. Bargallo, A. Erazo. Consenso Mexicano sobre diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer mamario. Masson Doyma México, S.A. 2013.

10. C.P. Ho, J. Gillis, et al. Interactive case review of radiologic and pathologic findings from breast biopsy: Are the concordant? How do I manage the results?. Radiographics 2013; 33:E149-E152.

11. A. Escobar, Y. Villaseñor. Experiencia de un año en biopsias de mama realizadas comparadas con su resultado histológico. INCAN. Anales de Radiología México 2006;1:39-45.