Logotipo del repositorio
Logotipo del repositorio
 

Effectiveness of mammography and breast ultrasound in detecting lesions suspicious of breast cancer (BI-RADS 4 AND 5)

Vista sencilla de ítem
datacite.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_f1cf
dc.contributor.authorAlfaro Eraso, Leidy
dc.contributor.authorAlemán García, Daniela
dc.contributor.authorFernández Mercado, Robinson
dc.contributor.authorLlinás, Federico
dc.contributor.authorDiaz-Yunez, Israel
dc.contributor.authorDe Nubila, Eduardo
dc.contributor.authorFranco Novella, Hernando
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-31T21:47:54Z
dc.date.available2025-01-31T21:47:54Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractTo evaluate the effectiveness of mammography and breast ultrasound in the detection of lesions suspicious of breast cancer (BI-RADS 4 and 5). This cross-sectional study examined 315 cases involving mammographic and ultrasound reports categorised as BI-RADS 4 or 5. These cases underwent image-guided biopsies between 2018 and 2023. Cases involving radiotherapy or chemotherapy were excluded. Data were collected from medical histories and pathology reports from biopsies. The following variables were recorded: age; BI-RADS classification; type of study; and histological type. Descriptive statistics were used and chi-square tests were performed. Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05. Of the BI-RADS 4 cases, 28.78% were classified by ultrasound and 90% by digital mammography. Seventy-one point twenty-two percent of BI-RADS 5 were detected by ultrasound and 10% by digital mammography. Ultrasound detected 80.98% (n = 166) of malignant cases. Digital mammography identified 23.64% (n = 26) of malignant cases. In subcategory 4A, 13 out of 70 cases (18.5%) were confirmed as cancerous, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 10.2% to 29.6%. For BIRADS 4B: In subcategory 4B, 14 out of 70 cases (20.0%) were found to be cancerous, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 11.3% to 31.2%. In subcategory 4C, 15 out of 18 cases (83.3%) were confirmed as cancerous, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 58.5% to 96.4%. Finally, for the BIRADS 5 category: Of the 157 cases classified as BIRADS 5, 95.5% (150 cases) were found to be cancerous, with a 95% CI ranging from 91% to 98%. Overall, 73.42% (n = 116) of BI-RADS 4 cases were benign, while 95.54% (n = 150) of BI-RADS 5 cases were malignant. The cancer detection rate by ultrasound for BIRADS 4 was 41%, compared to 16.1% for mammography. Ultrasound detected 95.8% of the total number of patients with BIRADS-5, and mammography detected 90.9%. Conclusion: BI-RADS category 5 offers high diagnostic predictability, whereas BI-RADS category 4 still yields a high number of false positives, primarily within subcategories 4a and 4b. Combining ultrasound and digital mammography improves the overall diagnostic capacity.eng
dc.format.mimetypepdf
dc.identifier.doi10.5281/zenodo.121.126276
dc.identifier.issn2407-9529 (Electrónico)
dc.identifier.issn2408-0071 (Impreso)
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12442/16188
dc.identifier.urlhttps://sci-cult.net/index.php/cult/article/view/3184/1921
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Egeospa
dc.publisherEdiciones Universidad Simón Bolívarspa
dc.publisherFacultad de Ciencias de la Saludspa
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United Stateseng
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/
dc.sourceScientific cultureeng
dc.sourceVol. 12  No. 11  Año 2026 spa
dc.subject.keywordsBreast cancereng
dc.subject.keywordsDigital mammographyeng
dc.subject.keywordsBreast ultrasoundeng
dc.subject.keywordsEffectivenesseng
dc.subject.keywordsDiagnosiseng
dc.subject.keywordsBiopsyeng
dc.subject.keywordsBI-RADS 4eng
dc.subject.keywordsBI-RADS 5eng
dc.titleEffectiveness of mammography and breast ultrasound in detecting lesions suspicious of breast cancer (BI-RADS 4 AND 5)spa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/other
dc.type.spaOtros
dcterms.referencesAibar L, Santalla A, López-Criado MS, González-Pérez I, Calderón MA, Gallo JL, et al. Clasificación radiológica y manejo de las lesiones mamarias. Clin Invest Ginecol Obstet. 2011 Jul;38(4):141–9.eng
dcterms.referencesAmin AL, Purdy AC, Mattingly JD, Kong AL, Termuhlen PM. Benign breast disease. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(2):299-308.spa
dcterms.referencesBerry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Efecto de la detección y la terapia adyuvante sobre la mortalidad por cáncer de mama. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784.spa
dcterms.referencesBuchberger W. Combined screening with mammography and ultrasound in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol. 2018:24-9.spa
dcterms.referencesChika F, Mamta P, Lin W, Jenny C.C. A comparative efficacy study of diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in BI-RADS 4 breast cancer diagnosis. Eur J Radiol. 2022 Aug. (Nota: Faltan los números de página, si estuvieran disponibles).spa
dcterms.referencesD’Orsi C, Bassett L, Feig S. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). En: Breast imaging atlas, 4a ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2018.eng
dcterms.referencesGong X, Li Q, Gu L, Chen C, Liu X, Zhang X, et al. Conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound radiomics in breast cancer and molecular subtype diagnosis. Front Oncol. 2023;13. (Nota: Faltan los números de página o el identificador de artículo electrónico).eng
dcterms.referencesHooley RJ. Evaluation of Screening Whole-Breast Sonography as a Supplemental Tool in Conjunction With Mammography in Women With Dense Breasts: Chae EY, Kim HH, Cha JH, et al (Univ of Ulsan, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea) J Ultrasound Med 32:1573-1578, 2013. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly. 2014;25(1):43-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.breastdis.2014.01.022.eng
dcterms.referencesLauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, et al. Detección del cáncer de mama: punto de vista del Grupo de Trabajo del IARC. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2353.eng
dcterms.referencesLuo WQ, Huang QX, Huang XW, Hu HT, Zeng FQ, Wang W. Predicting Breast Cancer in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Ultrasound Category 4 or 5 Lesions: A Nomogram Combining Radiomics and BI-RADS. Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 1;9(1).eng
dcterms.referencesMaier WP, Au FC, Tang CK. Nonlactional breast infection. Am Surg. 1994;60(4):247-50.eng
dcterms.referencesMelissa Min-Szu Y, Boinne N, Joe. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging: Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors. Departamento de Radiología, Hospital Wan Fang, NY, US. 2018 Jul. (Nota: Esta referencia parece ser un resumen de presentación o un informe departamental; no es una publicación de revista estándar y el formato es el mejor posible con la información dada).eng
dcterms.referencesOhuchi N, Ishida T, Suzuki A, Ohuchi N. Ecografía en el cribado del cáncer de mama. En: Toi M, editor. Estrategias de detección y reducción del riesgo para el cáncer de mama. Singapur: Springer; 2023. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-7630-8_10.eng
dcterms.referencesOhuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (JSTART): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016 Jan 23;387(10016):341-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(15)00774-6.spa
dcterms.referencesPérez I, Villaseñor Y, Pérez M, Cruz R. Resonancia magnética de mama y sus aplicaciones. Gaceta Mexicana de Oncología. 2012;11. (Nota: Faltan los números de página, si estuvieran disponibles).spa
dcterms.referencesSaslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr;57(2):75-89.eng
dcterms.referencesSickles EA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. ACR BI-RADS follow-up and outcome monitoring. En: D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, editores. ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.eng
dcterms.referencesYuan WH, Hsu HC, Chen YY, et al. Ecografía suplementaria de detección del cáncer de mama en mujeres con mamas densas: revisión sistemática y metanálisis. Br J Cancer. 2020;123:673–88. DOI: 10.1038/s41416- 020-0928-1.eng
oaire.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
sb.programaEspecialización en Ginecología y Obstetriciaspa
sb.sedeSede Barranquillaspa

Archivos

Bloque original
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
PDF.pdf
Tamaño:
187.09 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descargar
Bloque de licencias
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
2.93 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción:
Descargar

Colecciones

Especialización
Artículos

Universidad Simón Bolívar: Todos los derechos reservados / Sistema de biblioteca