Evaluation of high‑risk patients with dense breast on high‑resolution ultrasound for screening and detection of breast cancer where mammography is of low significance
Article Sidebar
Views | PDF/EPUB Downloads:
10
/ 1
/ 1
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Early diagnosis of breast cancer is a challenging problem in high-risk patients with dense breast. The risk of breast cancer is many fold higher in dense breast as compared to nondense on one side with limited screening or diagnostic role of mammography on the other side. The aim of our study is to elaborate the role of high-resolution ultrasonography (HR-USG) as adjunct modality to overcome this limitation.
Materials and Methods: This is a prospective observational study conducted in the breast care clinic of a tertiary care cancer hospital. Totally, 2720 patients were enrolled for mammography. Out of these, 339 patients were reported according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) as 0 (inconclusive) and were suggested for further evaluation by other modalities. All patients reported for mammography as BIRADS 0, were included in this study for HR-USG.
Results: On HR‑USG, 33.4% of patients with dense breast were shown to have suspicious (BIRADS 5) lesions. 21.7% had simple cysts. Fibro adenomas and abscess were seen in 18% and in 15% of patients, respectively. Other findings were duct ectasia (4.3%) and galactocele (3.4%). 1.4% of patients were normal on HR-USG.
Conclusion: Our study showed HR-USG as a modality of choice that supersedes the diagnostic efficiency of mammography in patients with dense breasts thus enhances early detection and better treatment of breast cancer, decreasing mortality owning to delay in diagnosis.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
How to Cite
References
1. Hersh MR. Imaging the dense breast. Appl Radiol 2004;33:22.
2. Malik G, Waqar F, Buledi GQ. Sonomammography for evaluation of solid breast masses in young patients. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad
2006;18:34‑7.
3. Mukhtar R, Hussain M, Mukhtar MA, Ali SM. Breast metastasis from medullary carcinoma of thyroid: A case report with literature view. J Pak Med Assoc 2020;70:2051‑3.
4. Rotten D, Levaillant JM, Le Floch JP, Constancis E, André JM. Mass screening for breast cancer with sonomammography: A prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1988;28:257‑67.
5. Mukhtar R, Hussain M, Mukhtar MA, Mushtaq S, Haider SR. Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) in combination with radiological imaging enhances the diagnostic accuracy of breast lesions in developing countries. Int J Sci Res Rev 2020;9:20‑7.
6. Gonzaga MA. How accurate is ultrasound in evaluating palpable breast masses? Pan Afr Med J 2010;7:1.
7. Beerappa JR, Balu S, Kumar N. Mammographic and sonomammographic evaluation of breast masses with pathological correlation: A prospective original study. Int J Anat Radiol Surg 2016;5:9‑12.
8. Carney PA, Parikh J, Sickles EA, Feig SA, Monsees B, Bassett LW, et al. Diagnostic mammography: Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria. Radiology 2013;267:359‑67.
9. Assi HA, Khoury KE, Dbouk H, Khalil LE, Mouhieddine TH, El Saghir NS. Epidemiology and prognosis of breast cancer in young women. J Thorac Dis 2013;5 Suppl 1:S2‑8.
10. Chen HL, Zhou JQ, Chen Q, Deng YC. Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e26531.
11. Thigpen D, Kappler A, Brem R. The role of ultrasound in screening dense breasts‑a review of the literature and practical solutions for implementation. Diagnostics (Basel) 2018;8:20.
12. Raghavendra A, Sinha AK, Le‑Petross HT, Garg N, Hsu L, Patangan M Jr., et al. Mammographic breast density is associated with the
development of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer 2017;123:1935‑40.
13. Irshad A, Leddy R, Ackerman S, Cluver A, Pavic D, Abid A, et al. Effects of changes in BI‑RADS density assessment guidelines (Fourth
Versus Fifth Edition) on breast density assessment: Intra‑ and interreader agreements and density distribution. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 1366‑71.
14. Ellison‑Loschmann L, McKenzie F, Highnam R, Cave A, Walker J, Jeffreys M. Age and ethnic differences in volumetric breast density in new zealand women: A cross‑sectional study. PLoS One 2013;8:e70217.
15. Caglayan EK, Caglayan K, Alkis I, Arslan E, Okur A, Banli O, et al. Factors associated with mammographic density in postmenopausal women. J Menopausal Med 2015;21:82‑8.
16. Fuhrman BJ, Brinton LA, Pfeiffer RM, Xu X, Veenstra TD, Teter BE, et al. Estrogen metabolism and mammographic density in postmenopausal women: A cross‑sectional study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:1582‑91.
17. Kotsuma Y, Tamaki Y, Nishimura T, Tsubai M, Ueda S, Shimazu K, et al. Quantitative assessment of mammographic density and breast cancer risk for Japanese women. Breast 2008;17:27‑35.
18. Health Quality Ontario. Magnetic resonance imaging as an adjunct to mammography for breast cancer screening in women at less than high risk for breast cancer: A health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2016;16:1‑30.
19. Machida Y, Tozaki M, Shimauchi A, Yoshida T. Breast density: The trend in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer 2015;22:253‑61.
20. Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Tamimi RM. Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to the time since the mammogram. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013;22:1110‑7.
21. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:227‑36.
22. Pettersson A, Graff RE, Ursin G, Santos Silva ID, McCormack V, Baglietto L, et al. Mammographic density phenotypes and risk of breast cancer: A meta‑analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju078.
23. Mercado CL. BI‑RADS update. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:481‑7.
24. Santiago‑Rivas M, Benjamin S, Andrews JZ, Jandorf L. Breast density awareness and knowledge, and intentions for breast cancer screening
in a diverse sample of women age eligible for mammography. J Cancer Educ 2019;34:90‑7.
25. Radhakrishna S, Agarwal S, Parikh PM, Kaur K, Panwar S, Sharma S, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer management. South Asian J Cancer 2018;7:69‑71.
26. Santoro F, Podo F, Sardanelli F. MRI screening of women with hereditary predisposition to breast cancer: Diagnostic performance and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014;147:685‑7.
27. Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM, Snyder BS, Gareen IF, Bergin JT, et al. Comparison of abbreviated breast MRI versus digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection among women with dense breasts undergoing screening. JAMA 2020;323:746‑56.
28. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): First postcontrast subtracted images and maximum‑intensity projection – A novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol
2014;32:2304‑10.
29. Runjjala K , Naidu Y T. Combined mammographic and sonomammographic evaluation of breast masses. Int J Contemp Med Surg Radiol 2020;5:A162‑5.