z-logo
Premium
An audit of the results of ultrasound‐guided core needle biopsy of mammography versus ultrasound screen‐detected breast lesions
Author(s) -
Rhee Sun Jung,
Han BooKyung,
Ko Eun Sook,
Choi Ji Soo,
Ko Eun Young
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of clinical ultrasound
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.272
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1097-0096
pISSN - 0091-2751
DOI - 10.1002/jcu.22454
Subject(s) - medicine , mammography , ultrasound , radiology , audit , core biopsy , biopsy , breast imaging , breast cancer , cancer , management , economics
Purpose To analyze the malignancy rate of ultrasound‐guided core needle biopsy (US‐CNB) for screen‐detected breast lesions and to evaluate the results according to the mode of detection of the target lesions. Methods This is a retrospective review of 703 consecutive women who underwent US‐CNB for screen‐detected breast lesions at a single tertiary hospital. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI‐RADS) categories and histopathological results of the target lesions were assessed. The cases were divided into two groups: the mammography‐based detected lesions (M‐group) and the US‐based detected lesions (U‐group). The biopsy performances of the two groups were compared using the χ 2 test. Results The malignancy rate in the entire population was 22.0%: 0.8%, 12.3%, 65.2%, 89.3%, and 94.6% in BI‐RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5, respectively. The malignancy rate was significantly higher in the M‐group (54.1% [79/146]) than in the U‐group (13.6% [76/557]) ( p < 0.001). BI‐RADS category 3 was the most common assessment overall that led to a US‐CNB (362/703, 51.5%) and the rate of BI‐RADS category 3 diagnoses that led to US‐CNB was significantly higher in the U‐group ( p < 0.001). Conclusions The malignancy rate associated with US‐CNB for screen‐detected breast lesions was 22.0%. The breast lesions detected by mammography have a higher malignancy rate than those detected by US. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 45 :261–266, 2017

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here