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

2016, Number 03

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2016; 84 (03)

Mammographic and ultrasonographic BIRADS classification and its correlation with histopathologic findings

Acosta-Martínez M, Karchmer-Krivitzky S, Melgar-Barriga G, Molinar-Horcasitas ML, Garza-Arrieta J

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 136-142
PDF size: 286.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Screening programs for breast cancer include self and clinical examination and Imaging studies to obtain the BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) grade has been described as an important tool. In México, breast cancer is the leading death cause from malignancy in women and thus an early detection and prompt treatment is an important public health concern
Objetive: To compare the BIRADS classification with histopathological findings and cases of malignancy.
Methods: This is a retrospective, observational and descriptive study about of the correlation between histopathological reports and BIRADS classification.
Methods: Records of 1551 patients were reviewed, of which only 176 met the inclusion criteria. There was a predominance of fibrocystic condition. 44 patients had cancer, with varying degrees of detection according to each category of the classification where BIRADS 5 corresponded to 100% of the malignant cases.
Conclusion: Consistent with the results reported by other authors, highlighting some situations like BIRADS 4C (where there was a slight difference compared to literature) and the BIRADS 5 in which a detection of 100% of cases of cancer was achieved.


REFERENCES

  1. Rodden AM. Common breast concerns. Prim Care Clin Office Pract 2009;36:103-13.

  2. Meisner A, Fekrazad M, Royce M. Breast disease: benign and malignant. Med Clin N Am. 2006;92:1115-41.

  3. Venkataraman Sh, Slanetz PJ. Breast imaging: mammography and ultrasonography. In: UpToDate, Fletcher SW, Sokol HN (eds), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2016.

  4. Griffin JL, Pearlman M. Breast cancer screening in women at average risk and high risk. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1410- 21.

  5. Brandan M, Villaseñor Y. Detección del cáncer de mama: estado de la mamografía en México. Cancerología 2006;1:147-62.

  6. Jatoi I, Anderson W. Management of women who have a genetic predisposition for breast cancer. Surg Clin N Am. 2008;88:845-61.

  7. Orel S, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan D. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999;211:845-50.

  8. Tice J, Kerlikowske K. Screening and prevention of the breast cancer in primary care. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2009;36:533-58.

  9. Willey S, Cocilovo C. Screening and follow-up of the patient at high risk for breast cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(6):1404-16.

  10. Practice Bulletin No. 122: Breast cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:372-82.

  11. http://cnegsr.salud.gob.mx/contenidos/Programas_ de_Accion/CancerdelaMujer/cancermama/introduccion_ Cama.html

  12. Knaul F, Nigenda G, Lozano R, Arreola H, Langer A, Frenk J. Cáncer de mama en México: una prioridad apremiante. Salud Pública Mex 2009;51(2):S335-44.

  13. http://cnegsr.salud.gob.mx/contenidos/Programas_de_ Accion/CancerdelaMujer/InfEstad.html

  14. Sabel MS. Breast masses and other common breast problems. In: UpToDate, Chagpar AB, Duda RB, Fletcher SW (eds), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2016.

  15. Reynoso-Noveron N, Villaseñor-Navarro Y, Hernández-Ávila M, Mohar-Betancourt A. Carcinoma in situ e infiltrante identificado por tamizaje mamográfico oportunista en mujeres asintomáticas de la Ciudad de México. Salud Publica Méx 2013;55:469-77.

  16. Torres H, Silva LM, Tenorio E, Ríos N. Correlación histopatológica de hallazgos radiológicos BI-RADS 4,5 y 6. An Radiol Mex 2012;2:114-20.

  17. Santen R, Mansel R. Benign breast disorders. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(3):275-85.

  18. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Lobular breast carcinoma and its variants. Semin Diagn Pathol 2010;27(1):49-61.

  19. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas. 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2003.

  20. Sandoval-Hermosillo F, Vázquez-Lara GA, Farias-Evangelina LD, Madrid-Venegas DC, Jiménez-Covarrubias MG, Ramírez- Villaseñor M, et al. Comparación de dos métodos diagnósticos en tumores mamarios en un Centro de Cancerología de Colima, México. Rev Salud Pública 2010;12(3):446-53.

  21. Lazarus E, Mainiero M, Schepps B, Koelliker S, Livingston L. BI-RADS Lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology. 2006;239(2):385-91. AvISO A LOS LECTORES FEDERADOS La aplicación de la revista GINECOLOGÍA Y OBSTETRICIA DE MÉXICO puede descargarse de manera gratuita en las tiendas Play Store como Ginecol Obstet Mex y App Store como FEMECOG. Esta es




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com