Volume: 10 Issue: 2
Year: 2022, Page: 51-55, Doi: https://doi.org/10.47799/pimr.1002.11
Received: March 23, 2022 Accepted: May 5, 2022 Published: May 5, 2022
Background and Objective : Problem of invasive tests in breast lesion diagnosis can be addressed by comparing non-invasive tests with final Histopathological diagnosis obtained after excision biopsy. Present study was carried out to study diagnostic utility of mammography, sonography, FNAC compared to excision biopsy for diagnosis of breast lesions
Methods: Prospective Observational study was carried out among 81 women with Breast related symptoms. Digital Mammography Machine, ACUSON S3000™ Ultrasound System; FNAC and surgery for excision Biopsy were used. Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, Positive and Negative Predictive values were measured and p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results: Sonography and FNAC composite have sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values 100.00%, 81.40%, 90.12%, 82.61% and 100.00% respectively. Mammography+FNAC (97.3%) is not as sensitive as Sonography+FNAC (100%), Sonography combined with FNAC is equally sensitive to excision biopsy (100%) and therefore can be used for screening purpose.
Conclusion: Contrary to present guidelines which consider Mammography as most important screening tool for Breast Cancer, combination of Sonography and FNAC can be considered equally reliable.
Keywords: mammography, sonography, FNAC, excision biopsy, diagnosis, breast lesions
Shuani, . Role of Women in the Family and Society. Your Article Society. https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/family/role-of-women-in-the-family-and-society/47638
Nandakumar, A . 2019. National Cancer Registry Program. Consolidated Report of the Population Based Cancer Registries. Incidence and Distribution of Cancer: 1990-96. Indian Council of Medical Research. Cancer 125:3184–3197.
Al-Sharbatti, S S, Shaikh, R B & Mathew, E . 2013. Breast self-examination practice and breast cancer risk perception among female university students in Ajman. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14:4919–4923.
Sharma, K S, Lim, P & Brotherston, M T . 2016. Excision versus incision biopsy in the management of malignant melanoma. JDermatolTreat 27:88–90.
Leifland, K, Lagerstedt, U & Svane, G . 2003. Comparison of stereotactic fine needle aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in 522 non-palpable breast lesions. Acta Radiologica 44:387–391.
Sickles, E A . 2003. The American College of Radiology’s Mammography Interpretive Skills Assessment (MISA) examination. Semin Breast Dis 6:133–173.
Park, K . 2019. In: Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine. (pp. 152) Jabalpur:
Sankaye, S B & Dongre, S D . 2014. Cytological study of palpable breast lumps presenting in an Indian rural setup. Indian J Med Pediatr 35:159.
Khemka, A, Chakrabarti, N & Shah, S . 2009. Palpable breast lumps: fine-needle aspiration cytology versus histopathology: a correlation of diagnostic accuracy. Internet J Surg 18(1):15–21.
Zuk, J A, Maudsley, G I & Zakhour, H D . 1989. Rapid reporting on fine needle aspiration of breast lumps in outpatients. J Clin 42:906–911.
Meena, S P, Hemrajani, D K & Joshi, N . 2006. A comparative and evaluative study of cytological and histological grading system profile in malignant neoplasm of breast--an important prognostic factor. Indian J Pathol 49:199–202.
Clegg-Lamptey, , Jn, & Hodasi, W M . 2007. A study of breast cancer in Korle Bu Teaching Hospital: Assessing the impact of health education. Ghana Med J 41:72–77.
Kriege, M, Brekelmans, C T & Boetes, C . 2004. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. New 351:427–437.
Sardanelli, F, Podo, F & Santoro, F . 2011. High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 (HIBCRIT-1) Study. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk Italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 46:94–105.
Kolb, T M, Lichy, J & Newhouse, J H . 2002. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiol 225:165–175.
Warner, E, Plewes, D B & Hill, K A . 2004. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. J Am Med Assoc 292:1317–1325.
Ohlinger, R, Heyer, H & Thomas, A . 2006. Non-palpable breast lesions in asymptomatic women: diagnostic value of initial ultrasonography and comparison with mammography. Anticancer 26:3943–3955.
Huang, C S, Wu, C Y & Chu, J S . 1999. Microcalcifications of non-palpable breast lesions detected by ultrasonography: correlation with mammography and histopathology. Ultrasound 13:431–436.
Navarro, B, Úbeda, B & Vallespí, M . 2011. Role of elastography in the assessment of breast lesions: preliminary results. JUltrasound 30:313–321.
Bergwa, , Blumejd, & Cormackjb, . 2008. Combined Screening with Ultrasoundand Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer. J Am Med Assoc 299:2151–2163.
Podo, F, Sardanelli, F & Canese, R . 2002. The Italian multi-center project on evaluation of MRI and other imaging modalities in early detection of breast cancer in subjects at high genetic risk. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 21:115–124.
Dixon, J M, Walsh, J & Paterson, D . 1992. Color Doppler ultrasonography studies of benign and malignant breast lesions. Br J 79:259–260.
Flobbe, K, Bosch, A M & Kessels, A G . 2003. The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Arch Intern 163:1194–1199.
Rubin, M, Horiuchi, K & Joy, N . 1997. Use of fine needle aspiration for solid breast lesions is accurate and cost-effective. Am J 174:694–698.
Özdemir, A, Özdemir, H & Maral, I . 2001. Differential diagnosis of solid breast lesions: contribution of Doppler studies to mammography and gray scale imaging. J Ultrasound 20:1091–1101.
Florentine, B D, Staymates, B & Rabadi, M . 2006. Cancer Committee of the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital. The reliability of fine-needle aspiration biopsy as the initial diagnostic procedure for palpable masses: a 4-year experience of 730 patients from a community hospital-based outpatient aspiration biopsy clinic. Cancer 107:406–416.
Reinikainen, H, Rissanen, T J & Piippo, U K . 1999. Contribution of ultrasonography and fine-needle aspiration cytology to the differential diagnosis of palpable solid breast lesions. Acta Radiologica 40:383–389.
Homesh, N A, Issa, M A & El-Sofiani, H A . 2005. The diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology versus core needle biopsy for palpable breast lump (s) Saudi Med J 26:42–46.
Ciatto, S, Cariaggi, P & Bulgaresi, P . 1993. Fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: review of 9533 consecutive cases. The Breast 2:87–90.
Muddegowda, P H, Lingegowda, J B & Kurpad, R . 2011. The value of systematic pattern analysis in FNAC of breast lesions: 225 cases with cytohistological correlation. J Cytol 28:13.
Westenend, P J, Sever, A R & Beekman-De Volder, H J . 2001. A comparison of aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in the evaluation of breast lesions. Cancer 93:146–150.
Oeffinger, K C, Fontham, E T & Etzioni, R . 2015. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the. JAm Med Assoc 314:1599–1614.
Baig R, Desai R, Tabassum M, Mughni MA, Quadri SH, Rafai SZ. Comparison of Mammography, Sonography, Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology, and Excision Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions . Perspectives in Medical Research. 2022;10(2):51-55 DOI: 10.47799/pimr.1002.11