Mancilla-Mazariegos ST, González-Vergara C

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 93-99
PDF size: 344.73 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Mammography is the reflection of normal breast anatomy and disturbances caused by pathologic processes, and will depend on the proportion of its components. Currently, the most used classification of mammographic patterns is the BI-RADS^® classification, however its pattern distribution has only been described in North American population and women from Latin America have not been considered.
Objective: To learn the prevalence of breast density in Mexican women and confirm whether the rates described in BI-RADS^® are applicable to our population.
Material and method: 2,000 women between 40 and 81 years of age were evaluated with diagnostic or screening digital mammography in the Hospital from 2013 -2015. Mammographies were read by a certified radiologist with additional qualification in breast reading, using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS^® classification to establish the category of the mammographic pattern.
Result: The frequency of the 4 mammographic patterns was analyzed, with an overall distribution for the 2,000 women sample revealing the following results: 226 with Type A pattern (11.3%), 1,296 with Type B pattern (64.8%), 400 with Type C pattern (20%), 78 with Type D pattern (3.9%).
Conclusions: We found that the predominant breast density in our population is the scattered fibroglandular pattern, and when compared to the rates described by BI-RADS^®, as well as other studies from US female population, we conclude that they are not applicable to our own population since the factors associated to breast density are different.

REFERENCES

1. Tabár L, Tot T, Dean PB. Breast cancer : the art and science of early detection with mammography : perception, interpretation, histopathologic correlation. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2005. p. 16-38.

2. Stines J, Tristant H. The normal breast and its variations in mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2005;54:26-36.

3. Abramson RG, Mavi A, Cermik T, Basu S, Wehrli NE, Houseni M, et al. Age-related structural and functional changes in the breast: multimodality correlation with digital mammography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:146-53.

4. Al Mousa DS, Ryan EA, Mello-Thoms C, Brennan PC. What effect does mammographic breast density have on lesion detection in digital mammography? Clin Radiol. 2014;69:333-41.

5. Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, Lee J, Toth H. The relationship of mammographic density and age: implications for breast cancer screening. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:W292-5.

6. Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. RadioGraphics. 2015;35:302-15.

7. Gascón I, Casamayor C, Sánchez N, Hernando E, Martínez J, Fernández- Sanguino AB, et al. Cirugía conservadora en el cáncer de mama. Reconstrucción con malla reabsorbible de poliglactina 910. Rev Senol Patol Mamar. 2017;30:61-7.

8. Sprague BL, Conant EF, Onega T, Garcia MP, Beaber EF, Herschorn SD, et al. Variation in mammographic breast density assessments among radiologists in clinical practice: a multicenter observational study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:457-64.

9. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, Wellman RD, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(10).