Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions

OBJECTIVES: In breast cancer diagnosis, mammography (MMG), ultrasonography (USG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the imaging methods most used. There is a scarcity of comparative studies that evaluate the accuracy of these methods in the diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out through the review of electronic medical records of 32 female patients who underwent breast imaging examinations at a imaging diagnostic center in Teresina, State of Piauí, Brazil. Patients who had these three imaging methods at the time of the evaluation of the same nodule were included. The nodule must have been classified as suspect by the BI-RADS® system in at least one of the methods. Data from each method were compared with the histopathological examination. Statistical analysis used the calculation of proportions in Excel 2010. RESULTS: MMG showed 56.2%, 87.5%, 81.8%, 66.7% and 71.8% of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy, respectively. USG had 75%, 18.8%, 48%, 42.8% and 46.9% of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively. In turn, MRI had 100%, 50%, 66.7%, 100% and 75% of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Thus, MRI and MMG were more accurate in evaluating suspicious breast lumps. MRI had a low specificity, mainly to high breast density, while MMG had also sensitivity limited due to high breast density and USG has been proven to be useful in these patients.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pereira,Renato de Oliveira, Luz,Larissa Almondes da, Chagas,Diego Cipriano, Amorim,Jefferson Rodrigues, Nery-Júnior,Elmo de Jesus, Alves,Araci Castelo Branco Rodrigues, Abreu-Neto,Flávio Teixeira de, Oliveira,Maria da Conceição Barros, Silva,Danylo Rafhael Costa, Soares-Júnior,José Maria, Silva,Benedito Borges da
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Faculdade de Medicina / USP 2020
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322020000100253
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S1807-59322020000100253
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S1807-593220200001002532020-07-20Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesionsPereira,Renato de OliveiraLuz,Larissa Almondes daChagas,Diego CiprianoAmorim,Jefferson RodriguesNery-Júnior,Elmo de JesusAlves,Araci Castelo Branco RodriguesAbreu-Neto,Flávio Teixeira deOliveira,Maria da Conceição BarrosSilva,Danylo Rafhael CostaSoares-Júnior,José MariaSilva,Benedito Borges da Breast Cancer Mammography Ultrasonography Magnetic Resonance Imaging OBJECTIVES: In breast cancer diagnosis, mammography (MMG), ultrasonography (USG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the imaging methods most used. There is a scarcity of comparative studies that evaluate the accuracy of these methods in the diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out through the review of electronic medical records of 32 female patients who underwent breast imaging examinations at a imaging diagnostic center in Teresina, State of Piauí, Brazil. Patients who had these three imaging methods at the time of the evaluation of the same nodule were included. The nodule must have been classified as suspect by the BI-RADS® system in at least one of the methods. Data from each method were compared with the histopathological examination. Statistical analysis used the calculation of proportions in Excel 2010. RESULTS: MMG showed 56.2%, 87.5%, 81.8%, 66.7% and 71.8% of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy, respectively. USG had 75%, 18.8%, 48%, 42.8% and 46.9% of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively. In turn, MRI had 100%, 50%, 66.7%, 100% and 75% of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Thus, MRI and MMG were more accurate in evaluating suspicious breast lumps. MRI had a low specificity, mainly to high breast density, while MMG had also sensitivity limited due to high breast density and USG has been proven to be useful in these patients.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFaculdade de Medicina / USPClinics v.75 20202020-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322020000100253en10.6061/clinics/2020/e1805
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Pereira,Renato de Oliveira
Luz,Larissa Almondes da
Chagas,Diego Cipriano
Amorim,Jefferson Rodrigues
Nery-Júnior,Elmo de Jesus
Alves,Araci Castelo Branco Rodrigues
Abreu-Neto,Flávio Teixeira de
Oliveira,Maria da Conceição Barros
Silva,Danylo Rafhael Costa
Soares-Júnior,José Maria
Silva,Benedito Borges da
spellingShingle Pereira,Renato de Oliveira
Luz,Larissa Almondes da
Chagas,Diego Cipriano
Amorim,Jefferson Rodrigues
Nery-Júnior,Elmo de Jesus
Alves,Araci Castelo Branco Rodrigues
Abreu-Neto,Flávio Teixeira de
Oliveira,Maria da Conceição Barros
Silva,Danylo Rafhael Costa
Soares-Júnior,José Maria
Silva,Benedito Borges da
Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions
author_facet Pereira,Renato de Oliveira
Luz,Larissa Almondes da
Chagas,Diego Cipriano
Amorim,Jefferson Rodrigues
Nery-Júnior,Elmo de Jesus
Alves,Araci Castelo Branco Rodrigues
Abreu-Neto,Flávio Teixeira de
Oliveira,Maria da Conceição Barros
Silva,Danylo Rafhael Costa
Soares-Júnior,José Maria
Silva,Benedito Borges da
author_sort Pereira,Renato de Oliveira
title Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions
title_short Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions
title_full Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions
title_fullStr Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions
title_sort evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions
description OBJECTIVES: In breast cancer diagnosis, mammography (MMG), ultrasonography (USG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the imaging methods most used. There is a scarcity of comparative studies that evaluate the accuracy of these methods in the diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out through the review of electronic medical records of 32 female patients who underwent breast imaging examinations at a imaging diagnostic center in Teresina, State of Piauí, Brazil. Patients who had these three imaging methods at the time of the evaluation of the same nodule were included. The nodule must have been classified as suspect by the BI-RADS® system in at least one of the methods. Data from each method were compared with the histopathological examination. Statistical analysis used the calculation of proportions in Excel 2010. RESULTS: MMG showed 56.2%, 87.5%, 81.8%, 66.7% and 71.8% of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy, respectively. USG had 75%, 18.8%, 48%, 42.8% and 46.9% of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively. In turn, MRI had 100%, 50%, 66.7%, 100% and 75% of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Thus, MRI and MMG were more accurate in evaluating suspicious breast lumps. MRI had a low specificity, mainly to high breast density, while MMG had also sensitivity limited due to high breast density and USG has been proven to be useful in these patients.
publisher Faculdade de Medicina / USP
publishDate 2020
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322020000100253
work_keys_str_mv AT pereirarenatodeoliveira evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT luzlarissaalmondesda evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT chagasdiegocipriano evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT amorimjeffersonrodrigues evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT neryjuniorelmodejesus evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT alvesaracicastelobrancorodrigues evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT abreunetoflavioteixeirade evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT oliveiramariadaconceicaobarros evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT silvadanylorafhaelcosta evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT soaresjuniorjosemaria evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
AT silvabeneditoborgesda evaluationoftheaccuracyofmammographyultrasoundandmagneticresonanceimaginginsuspectbreastlesions
_version_ 1756432353848197120