Breast biopsy histopathologic results and breast ultrasonography findings agreement in solid masses diagnosis
Keywords:
Breast, Imaging diagnosis, Mammary ultrasonography, Breast cancerAbstract
Breast ultrasonography is a non-invasive complementary exam that has been performing an important
role in the diagnosis of mammary illness. Through the characteristics of an ultrasonographic image, we
can predict malignity or benignity.The objectof this research was to identify, in ourfield, which ultrasonographic characteristics are most commonly associated with malignity. We researched 105 cases of solid
tumors identified by mammary ultrasonography in the period of January to December 2005. The various ultrasound characteristics analyzed were: shape, wall contour, margin, echogenicidity, echotexture,
posterior acustic shadow, posterior acustic reinforcement, relation width/length oflesion and conclusion
of ultrasound. Immediately, we carried out a pathological anatomy investigation of the tumor. Among
the ultrasound characteristics, the irregularity of margins (p = 0.001) and badly defined wall contour
(p = 0.011) were the most associatedwith malignity. The ultrasonography conclusion, when present, alsocorrelated with the pathological anatomyfindings (p < 0.001). The other variables, being little descript,
could not be evaluated asfor their association with malignity. In ourfield, thestudy of margin and wall
contour of the solid tumors are the most determind characteristics in ultrasound diagnosisof malignity.
Incomplete and inconclusive findings are limiting factors in the diagnostic value ofthis type of study.
Downloads
References
1. Osako T, Takahashi K, Iwase T, et al. Diagnostic ultrasonography
and mammography for invasive and non invasive breast cancer in
women aged 30 to 39 years. Breast Cancer. 2007;14(2):229-33.
2. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid
breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213:889-94.
3. Leucht WJ, Rabe DR, Humbert KD. Diagnosis value of different
interpretative criteria in real-time sonography of the breast. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1988;14(1):59-73.
4. Costantini M, Belli P, Ierardi C, et al. Solid breast mass characterisation: use ofthe sonographic BI-RADS classification. Radiol Med
(Torino). 2007; 112(6):877-94.
5. Chang RF, Wu WJ, Moon WK, Chen DR. Automatic ultrasound
segmentation and morphology of solid breast tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;89(2):179-85.
6. Pasqualette HAP, Pereira PMS, Calas MJG, et al. Revisão e validação de uma proposta de classificação de laudos de ultra-sonografia
mamária. Rev Bras Mastol. 2003;13(4):159-66.
7. Paulinelli RR, Moreira MAR, Freitas Jr. R. Ultra-sonografia no
diagnóstico do câncer de mama: realidade atual e possibilidades
para o futuro. Rev Bras Mastol. 2003;13(4):168-74.
8. Sehgal CM, Cary TW, Kansas SA, et al. Computer-based margin
analysis of breast sonography for differentiating malignant and benign masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23(9):1201-9.
9. Hasni H, Meah FA, Norlia A, Sharifah NA, Zulfiqar A. Ultrassound in the assessment of the palpable breast mass. Med J Malaysia. 2004;59(4):486-94.
10. Skaane P, Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR.
1998;170:109-14.
11. Heinig J, Witteler R, Schmitz R, Kiesel L, Steinhard J. Accuracy
of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used
for BI-RADS. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008 Apr 18. [Epub
ahead of print]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 agner Antonio Paz, Gustavo Lanza de Mello, Soraya de Paula Paim, Kerstin Kapp Rangel, Patrícia Bittencourt Marques Lauria
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
