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.
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |