Comparison of Biopsy Results and Imaging Methods, in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

DOI: 10.4236/ss.2012.39088   PDF   HTML     3,506 Downloads   5,209 Views   Citations


Purpose: In this study, we aimed at comparing the sensitivity and selectivity rates of Ultrasonography (USG), Mamography (MG) and Magnetic Resonance (MR), based on the biopsy results of breast mass lesions. Materials and methods: Between January 2009 and December 2010 in Konya Training and Research Hospital the biopsy results and reports of imaging tecniques such as USG, MG and MR, were obtained from the hospital automation. The sensitivity and selectivity of the USG, MG and MR were calculated. Results: The avarage age of the 112 patients included in this study is 49 ± 10 (23 - 71). 27 (24%) of the patients were found to have breast cancer after the histopathologic examination. USG was used with the 95 (94%) of the patients and 17 (18%) of the patients were diagnosed to have cancer. MG was used with the 75 (67%) of the patients and 15 (20%) of the patients were diagnosed to have cancer, and MR was used with the 112 (100%) of the patients and 25 (22%) of the patients were diagnosed to have cancer. In the pathologic diagnosis of cancer, the sensitivity of USG was found 85%, the sensitivity of MG was found 89%, and the sensitivity of MR was found 92%. The selectivity of these tecniques were 58%, 87% and 57% respectively. Conclusion: MR and MG have similar sensitivity rates in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast MR is an appropriate imaging tecnique that can be used in suitable indications in addition to USG and MG.

Share and Cite:

M. Eryılmaz, Ö. Öner, A. Okuş, Ö. Karahan, S. Bodur, S. Ay and S. Civcik, "Comparison of Biopsy Results and Imaging Methods, in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer," Surgical Science, Vol. 3 No. 9, 2012, pp. 445-451. doi: 10.4236/ss.2012.39088.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] A. A. Hatipoglu and A. M. Tuncer, “Turkiyede Kanser Kontrolu 1 (Baski),” Onur Matbacilik, Ankara, 2007.
[2] J. W. Leung, “Screening Mammography Reduced Morbidity of Breast Cancer Treatment,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 184, 2005, pp. 1508-1509.
[3] R. A. Denise, et al., “Imaging and Cancer: Research Strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network,” Radiology, Vol. 235, 2005, pp. 741-751. doi:10.1148/radiol.2353041760
[4] A. M. Tuncer and T. C. Saghk, “Bakanlhgi Kanserle Savas Dairesi Baskanhgi, Kadinlarda Meme Kanseri Taramalari Icin Ulusal Standartlari,” 2004.
[5] A. S. Majid, et al., “Missed Breast Carcinoma: Pitfalls and Pearls,” Radiographics, Vol. 23, 2003, pp. 881-895. doi:10.1148/rg.234025083
[6] M. Mahesh, “AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Digital Mammography: An Overview,” Radiographics, Vol. 24, 2004, pp. 1747-1760. doi:10.1148/rg.246045102
[7] L. E. Duijm, et al., “Value of Breast Imaging in Women with Painful Breasts: Observational Follow Up Study,” British Medical Journal, Vol. 317, 1998, pp. 1492-1495. doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1492
[8] T. M. Kolb, et al., “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,” Radiology, Vol. 225, 2002, pp. 165-175. doi:10.1148/radiol.2251011667
[9] M. C. Segel, et al., “Advanced Primary Breast Cancer: Assessment Mammography of Response to Induction Chemotherapy,” Radiology, Vol. 169, 1988, pp. 49-54.
[10] T. Rezanko, “Triple Test and Algorithm in Diagnosis of Breast Tumors,” Journal of Breast Health, Vol. 3, 2008, pp. 143-150.
[11] M. Sant, et al., “Time Trends of Breast Cancer Survival in Europe in Relation to Incidence and Mortality,” International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 119, No. 10, 2006, pp. 2417-2422. doi:10.1002/ijc.22160
[12] V. Ozmen, “Dunya’da ve Turkiye’de Meme Kanseri Tarama (Screening) ve Kayit Programlari,” Journal of Breast Health, Vol. 2, 2006, pp. 55-58.
[13] S. W. Duffy, et al., “The Swedish Two-County Trial of Mammographic Screening: Cluster Randomisation and End Point Evaluation,” Annals of Oncology, Vol. 14, No. 8, 2003, pp. 1196-1198. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdg322
[14] P. Boyle, “Recommendation for Mammografhic Screening after the Dust Settles,” 8th International Conference: Primary Therapy of Early Breast Canser SL, 12-15 March 2002.
[15] R. Ballard-Barbash, et al., “Exploring the Role of Prevention, Screening and Treatment in Canser Trends in Perry ML,” In: American Society of Clinical Oncology: Educational Book, 2002, pp. 127-136.
[16] R. Dogan, et al., “Follow-Up Protocolof with Negative Findings or Non-Palpabl Benign Breast Lesion: Mamographic and Ultrasonographic BI-RADS Assessment and Ultrasonography Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy,” Journal of Breast Health, Vol. 3, 2007, pp. 58-62.
[17] C. Kuhl, “The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging. Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice,” Radiology, Vol. 244, 2007, pp. 356-378. doi:10.1148/radiol.2442051620
[18] S. H. Heywang-Korunner, et al., “Diagnostic ?maging,” 2nd Edition, Thineme, Ludwisburg, 2001.
[19] S. G. Orel, “MR Imaging of the Breast,” Radiologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2000, pp. 899-913. doi:10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70208-6
[20] D. Saslow, et al., “American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography,” A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Vol. 57, No. 2, 2007, pp. 75-89. doi:10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75
[21] W. A. Berg, et al., “Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammography, Clinical Examination, US, and MR Imaging in Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer,” Radiology, Vol. 233, 2004, pp. 830-849. doi:10.1148/radiol.2333031484
[22] D. A. Bluemke, et al., “Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 292, No. 22, 2004, pp. 2735-2742. doi:10.1001/jama.292.22.2735
[23] M. Van Goethem, et al., “Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 32, 2006, pp. 901-910. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2006.06.009
[24] I. Basara, et al., “Diagnostic Values of Mamography, Ultrasonography and Dynamic Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Lesions,” Journal of Breast Health, Vol. 7, 2011, pp. 118-126.
[25] M. F. Ernst and J. A. Roukema, “Diagnosis of Non-Palpable Breast Cancer: A Review,” Breast, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2002, pp. 13-22. doi:10.1054/brst.2001.0403
[26] S. D. Lind, et al., “Stereotactic Core Biopsy Reduces the Reexcision Rate and the Cost of Mammographically Detected Cancer,” Journal of Surgical Research, Vol. 78, No. 1, 1998, pp. 23-26. doi:10.1006/jsre.1998.5380

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.