Breast ultrasound diagnostic performance and outcomes for mass lesions using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0 mammogram

Authors

  • Paulo Almazy Zanello University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Internal Medicine Department; Diagnostic Imaging Division
  • Andre Felipe Cica Robim University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Internal Medicine Department; Diagnostic Imaging Division
  • Tatiane Mendes Gonçalves de Oliveira University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Internal Medicine Department; Diagnostic Imaging Division
  • Jorge Elias Junior University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Internal Medicine Department; Diagnostic Imaging Division
  • Jurandyr Moreira de Andrade University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Gynecology Department; Mastology Division
  • Carlos Ribeiro Monteiro University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Internal Medicine Department; Diagnostic Imaging Division
  • Joaquim Moraes Sarmento Filho University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Gynecology Department; Mastology Division
  • Helio Humberto Angotti Carrara University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Gynecology Department; Mastology Division
  • Valdair Francisco Muglia University of Sao Paulo; School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto; Internal Medicine Department; Diagnostic Imaging Division

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322011000300014

Keywords:

Breast Cancer, Breast ultrasonography, Bi-RADS, Mammography

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes and diagnostic performance of ultrasonography after a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (Bi-RADS) category 0 mammogram. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed 4,384 consecutive patients who underwent a screening mammography from January 2005 to July 2006; 391 of the 4,384 exams were classified as Bi-RADS category 0. After exclusions, 241 patients received subsequent sonogram. Ultrasonography was considered diagnostic when the Bi-RADS category was changed to 2, 4, or 5, and it was considered indeterminate (Bi-RADS 3) when the results indicated that the patients should return for a mammographic follow-up. The outcomes of these patients were assessed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 53.3 years (ranging from 35 to 81). Of the 241 patients, ultrasonography was considered diagnostic in 146 (60.6%) patients and indeterminate in 95 (39.4%) patients. In the diagnostic group, 111 out of 146 patients (70.2%) had a sonogram result of Bi-RADS category 2 after a 2-year follow-up without evidence of malignancy. Furthermore, 35 out of 146 patients (29.8%) had a suspicious sonogram with a result of Bi-RADS category 4. After a tissue sampling procedure, 10 patients were confirmed to have breast cancer, and 25 had benign histopathological features without any evidence of malignancy after a 2-year follow-up. The sensitivity of ultrasonography was 100%, specificity was 89.1%, and overall accuracy was 89.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the degree of resolution and its diagnostic performance, ultrasonography was determined to be an excellent method for the subsequent evaluation of Bi-RADS 0 mammograms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2011-01-01

Issue

Section

Clinical Sciences

How to Cite

Breast ultrasound diagnostic performance and outcomes for mass lesions using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0 mammogram . (2011). Clinics, 66(3), 443-448. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322011000300014