Evaluation of Breast Masses Using Mammography and Sonography as First Line Investigations

Abstract

Purpose: To study the specificity of mammography and ultrasonography separately and in combination for detection of breast masses (ultrasonography-mammography correlation); To study the investigations to evaluate various breast masses; To describe suitable indications, advantages and limitations of each technique compared with other available modalities; To study the mimics of breast masses; To have histopathology follow-up and retrospective evaluation with imaging findings to improve diagnostic skills in series of 166 patients complaining of breast mass. Material: The prospective clinical study was carried out in the department of Radiodiagnosis for a period of 2 year extending from December 2010 to December 2012 infemale patients complaining of breast mass. Well informed written consent was obtained from them. Histopathology follow up was obtained from either biopsy or post operative tissue. USG machine: Philips HD 11 XE USG of the breasts and axillary region done in supine position in presence of female attendant; Mammography machine: Allengers machine with Agfa special mammography cassettes. Cranio caudal and Medio-Lateral Oblique views are taken in the presence of female attendant. MRI: PHILIPS 1.5 T machine; CT: SIEMENS duel slice CT machine. Results: Ultrasonography and mammography was done in most of the cases were sufficient to diagnose the lesion in most of the cases especially in benign breast masses. MRI and CT scan was used in special cases to know the extent of the lesions, in mimics of breast masses, bony extensions, primary muscular and bony lesions. Total 166 patients complaining of breast mass in one or both breasts were examined and evaluated with USG and mammography. The lesions were confirmed on histopathology (FNAC/biopsy). Out of 30 diagnosed malignancies two lesions were missed on mammography and four lesions were missed on ultrasonography. One of them was missed on both. For malignancies specificity of mammography is 93.3% and that of ultrasonography is 86.67%. Combining both the modalities specificity is near 97%. Out of total 92 abnormal breasts 12 were missed on USG and 20 were missed on mammography. Combining both the modalities only 2 lesions were missed and were diagnosed on histopathology alone. Overall specificity for USG in breast masses is 86.9% and for mammography it is 78.6%. Combining both the modalities the specificity is 97.6%. The “p” value is obtained which is highly significant for combination of ultrasonography and mammography in comparison with any individual modality (p = 0.0059 & p = 0.0001 respectively). Conclusion: Our study confirms the higher combined sensitivity rate for ultrasonography and mammography for detection of breast masses including malignancies. USG is useful in cystic lesions, ectasias, infections, pregnancy-lactation, and dense breast evaluation and for image guidance, whereas mammography is useful in detecting microcalcifications, spiculated masses for early detection of malignancies and for stereotactic biopsies. To suggest single modality, ultrasonography is better in younger population and BIRAD 1, 2 & 3 lesions. Whereas, mammography is better in older population and BIRAD 4 & 5 lesions. However, sono-mammographic correlation is best in both.