Ultrasonographic and Mammographic Finding Malignant Tumors of the Breast in Young Women
Ultrasonographic and Mammographic Finding Malignant Tumors of the Breast in Young Women
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46475/asean-jr.v18i1.997Keywords:
Ultrasonography, Mammography, Malignant, Breast, Young womenAbstract
Objective: To evaluate the ultrasonographic (US) and mammographic findings as as well as their correlation
in malignant tumors of the breast in women aged 35 years or younger.
Material and methods: The subjects included 79 patients (with 85 lesions) diagnosed with breast cancer
at the age of 35 years or younger and with avable US and mammographic images for retrospective
review during 9 and a half-year period of the study at the Breast Diagnostic Center of the University
Hospital.
st young patients presented with a palpable breast mass. US showed a higher d
of malignant tumors in young age (9999% compared 84% in mammogram), Many US features suggested
the presence of malignant turmors such as noncircumscribed borders or thickened echogenic halo. Hower,
mammogram was still needed because not all malignant lesions were visualized by US. Mammographic
size was better correlated with pathological size than US-size, which tended to be underestimate the
pathological size.
Conclusion: US was a useful diagnostic tool to detect malignant turnors in young women. Its value was
not only to detect the lesion but also characterize it. Similar to the older age group, interpretation of US
along with mammogram increased the accuracy of diagnosis.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Kuhaprema T. Srivatanatul. Attasara P. Wiangnon S.
Sumitasawan Y. Cancer in Thailand volume 5. Bangkok
:47-51.
Paredes ES, Marsteller LP, Eden BV. Breast cancers in
women 35 years of age and younger. mammographic
findings. Radiology 1990:177:117-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.177.1.2399309
Mendelson EB, Tobin CE. Critical pathways in using breast
US. Radiographics 1995;15:935-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.15.4.7569138
Venta LA Dudiak CM. Salomon CG. Flisak ME. Sonogra-
phic evaluation of the breast. Radiographics 1994;14: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.14.1.8128064
-50.
Jackson VP. The role of US in breast imaging. Radiology
:177:305-11.
Paulinelli RR. Freitas R. Moreira MA. de Moraes VA.
Bernardes JR. Vidal CA, et al. Risk of malignancy in solid
breast nodules according to their sonographic features.
J Ultrasound Med 2005:24:635-41.
Houssami N, Inwig L, Simpson JM. McKessar M, Blome
S. Noakes J. Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study.
Comparative Sensitivity and Specificity of Mammography
and Sonography in Young Women with Symptoms. Am.
J. Roentgenol 2003:180:935-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/rtm.180.0935
Berg WA Gutierrez L, Nessaiver MS, Carter WB. Bhargavan
M. Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography,
clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative
assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004:233:
s830-49.
Kolb TM, Lichy J. Newhouse JH. Comparison of the
performance of screening mammography, physical
examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors
that influence them: An analysis of 27.825 patient
evaluations. Radiology 2002:225:165-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting
and Data System (BI-RADS) attas 4 ed. Reston. VA:
American College of Radiology 2003.
Bassett LW, Ysrael M, Gold RH, Ysrael C. Usefulness of
mammography and sonography in women less than 35
years of age. Radiology 1991:180:831-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.180.3.1871302
Berg, W.A. Tallored Supplemental Screening for Breast
Cancer: What Now and What Next? Am. J. Roentgenol
;192:390-99.
Fattaneh A. Tavassoli. P. World Health Organization Clas-
sification of Tumors. Pathology and Genetics of Tumors
of the Breast and Fernale Genital Organs. IARC Press:
Lyon 2003.
Pierie JP, Perre Cl, Levert LM, de Hooge P. Clinical
assessment, mammography and ultrasonography as
methods of measuring the size of breast cancer : a
comparison. The Breast 1998:7:247-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9776(98)90089-3
Finlayson CA MacDermott TA. Uhtrasound can estimate
the pathologic size of infitrating ductal carcinoma. Arch
Surg 2000;135:158-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.135.2.158
Allen SA, Cunlffe WJ, Gray Liston JE, Lunt LG. Webb
LA, et al. Pre-operative estimation of primary breast cancer
size: a comparison of clinical assessment, mammography
and ultrasound. The Breast 2001:10:299-305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.2000.0255
Colleoni. M. Very young women (<35 years) with operable
breast cancer: features of disease at presentation. Ann.
Onc 2002;13:273-79.
Yankaskas B. Performance of First Mammography
Examination in Women Younger Than 40 Years. J Nati
Cancer Inst 2010:102(10):692-701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq090
Althuis MD, Brogan DD, Coates RJ, Daling JR. Gammon
MD. Malone KE, et al. Breast cancers among very young
premenopausal women (United States), Cancer Causes
and Control 2003;14:151-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3184/147020603783637472
Stanford JL, Greenburg RS. Breast cancer incidence in
young women by estrogen receptor status and race. Am
J Public Health 1989:79:71-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.79.1.71
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2012 The ASEAN Journal of Radiology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Disclosure Forms and Copyright Agreements
All authors listed on the manuscript must complete both the electronic copyright agreement. (in the case of acceptance)
