7. Results of us and mammography with non-palpable lesions in breast cancer at K Hospital

Pham Hong Khoa, Tran Nguyen Tuan

Main Article Content

Abstract

With the development of imaging diagnostic tools, the detection rate of non-palpable breast tumors in early stages is increasing. The purpose of this study was to assess the role of ultrasound and mammography in patients with non-palpable breast tumors as well as to describe various clinical characteristics and the results of ultrasound and mammography. A descriptive retrospective study was conducted on 55 patients diagnosed with breast cancer with non-palpable tumors upon clinical examination at Hospital K from January 2018 to June 2023. The average age of the patients in the study was 53.4 ± 10.6 years old. 83% of the lesions were detected through regular health check-ups. Most patients had dense breast tissue on mammography, with type C accounting for 70.9%. The proportion of mass lesions detected through mammography was the highest, at 34.5%. On ultrasound, the majority of cases had lesion sizes ranging from 0.6 to 1.0cm, making up 43.63%. There were 19 cases (34.5%) of which the lesion size could not be measured through diagnostic imaging tools. Among cases with a determined lesion size, the average size was 0.9cm. The majority of patients had BIRADS 4 results, particularly BIRADS 4A, which had the highest percentage among all three diagnostic imaging methods. It is recommended to combine ultrasound and mammography with other diagnostic imaging methods such as breast MRI in patients with large or thick breasts. Diagnosing BIRADS 4A lesions should be cautioned to avoid missing non-palpable tumors.  

Article Details

References

1. Harmien Zonderland, Robin Smithuis. BI-RADS for Mammography and Ultrasound 2013. The Radiology Assistant. 2013;3
2. Rauch GM, Hobbs BP, Kuerer HM, et al. Microcalcifications in 1657 Patients with Pure Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: Correlation with Clinical, Histopathologic, Biologic Features, and Local Recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(2):482-489. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4876-6
3. Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidrich J, et al. Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2744-2751. doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4636-4
4. Rebolj M, Assi V, Brentnall A, et al. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2018;118(12):1559-1570. doi:10.1038/s41416-018-0080-3
5. Pan B, Yao R, Zhu QL, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics and long-term prognosis of screening detected non-palpable breast cancer by ultrasound in hospital-based Chinese population (2001-2014). Oncotarget. 2016;7(47):76840-76851. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.12319
6. Yilmaz S, Ünal GK, Aslan HS, et al. Ultrasound-guided wire localization biopsy in non-palpable breast lesions: predictive factors for malignancy.
7. Kim D, Lee SJ, Ko BK, et al. The Clinicopathological Characteristics of Palpable and Non-palpable Breast Cancer. J Breast Dis. 2020;8(2):92-99. doi:10.14449/jbd.2020.8.2.92
8. Li L, Zhang Q, Qian C, et al. Impact of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Surgical Outcomes in Women with Invasive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Clin Pract. 2022;2022:6440952. doi:10.1155/2022/6440952
9. Elverici E, Barça AN, Aktaş H, et al. Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015;21(3):189-194. doi:10.5152/dir.2014.14103