Mammographic, Ultrasonographic and Pathologic Correlations of Focal Asymmetric Breast Densities among a Sample of Iraqi Women
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.v5i3.602Keywords:
mammography, ultrasonography, asymmetric breast density, IraqAbstract
Objectives: is to evaluate the mammographic focal asymmetric breast densities FABD in order to highlight which FABD might need further workup through detailed ultrasonographic characterization and comparison with the pathological results in indicated cases.
Methods: A cross sectional analytic study was performed in the Oncology Teaching Hospital/Medical City from March 2018 to November 2018. The study included 70 women who attended the Main Referral Center for Early Detection of Breast Tumors with focal asymmetric breast densities FABD were detected by mammography. The focal asymmetry was analyzed and the other associated findings were assessed and registered. While breast ultrasound was performed for all patients, fine needle aspiration (FNA) was carried out for cases with suspicious findings on ultrasound and any FNA suspicious or malignant lesion was subsequently biopsied and the results were recorded.
Results: mammographic FABD was found in the right breast in 37 cases (52.9%) and in the left in 33 cases (47.1%). The upper outer quadrant (UOQ) was the most common location of FABD (43 cases). In 25 cases (34.2%) with FABD, there was no abnormality found on ultrasound, but normal looking breast parenchymal tissue. Ultrasound had shown benign findings in 30 cases (44.2%). On the other hand, suspicious and/or malignant features were observed in 15 cases (22.4%) which subsequently proved to be malignant by FNA and biopsy. Architectural distortion or grouped microcalcifications and a clinically palpable FABD were associated with malignant FABD; no benign FABD revealed to be associated with these findings.
Conclusion: The finding of FABD is common on mammography and mostly represents a benign entity of normal breast parenchymal tissue. However; it may indicate an underlying hidden malignancy especially in the presence of superadded mammographic findings as ill-defined mass, architectural distortion or grouped microcalcification.
References
2- Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ: Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Europian Radiology 2010, 20:734–742.
3- Smith RA, Cokkindes V, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2011. CA Cancer JClin. 2011; 61:8–30. [PubMed: 21205832]
4- Annual Report. Iraqi Cancer Registry 2015. Iraqi Cancer Board, Ministry of Health and Environment, Republic of Iraq, 2018.
5- Alwan NAS. Breast Cancer among Iraqi women: Preliminary Findings from a Regional Comparative Breast Cancer Research Project. Journal of Global Oncology, ASCO, 2016; 2 (1): 1-4.
6- Alwan NAS, Tawfeeq F, Maallah M et al. The Stage of Breast Cancer at the Time of Diagnosis: Correlation with the Cinicopathological Findings among Iraqi Patients. Journal of Neoplasm, 2017; Vol. 2 (3:22); 1-10.
7- Alwan NAS, Kerr D, Al-Okati D, Pezella F, Tawfeeq F. Comparative Study on the Clinicopathological Profiles of Breast Cancer among Iraqi and British Patients. The Open Public Health Journal, 2018;11: 3-17.
8- Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2011) Mammographic screening and "overdiagnosis". Radiology 260(3): 616–20.
9- Schonberg M.A., Ramanan R.A., McCarthy E.P., Marcantonio E.R. Decision making and counseling around mammography screening for women aged 80 or older. J. Gen. Intern Med.2006; 21(9):979-985.
10- Fenton JJ, Wheeler J, Carney PA, et al. Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers. Am J. Rotentgenol. 2006; 187:42–46.
11- Samardar P, de Paredes ES, Grimes MM, Wilson JD. Focal asymmetric densities seen at mammography: US and pathologic correlation. Radiographic 2002; 22:19-33.
12- Kopans DB. Suspicious lesions and lesions with a high probability of malignancy. In: McAllister L, ed. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007; 513-553.
13- Youk JH, MD, Kim EK, MD, Kim KH, MD, Kim MJ, MD. Asymmetric Mammographic Findings Based on the Fourth Edition of BI-RADS: Types, Evaluation, and Management1. RadioGraphics 2008; 10.
14- American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS: mammography. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003. (updated version in 2013)
15- Sickles EA. The spectrum of breast asymmetries: imaging features, work-up, management. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:765-771, v.
16- Leung JW, Sickles EA. Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188:667-675.
17- Brenner RJ. Asymmetric densities of the breast: strategies for imaging evaluation. Semin Roentgenol 2001; 36:201-216.
18- D,Orsi CJ, Sickeles EA,Meendelson EB,Morris EA et al. ACR BI-RADS atlas ,,Breast imaging reporting and data system, Reston VA ,American College of Radiology ;2013.
19- Venta LA, Wiley EL, Gabriel H, Adler YT. Imaging features of focal breast fibrosis: mammographic-pathologic correlation of non-calcified breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol AJR 1999; 173:309–16.
20- Piccoli CW, Feig SA, Palzaao JP. Developing Asymmetric Breast Tissue. Radiology 1999; 211:111-7. [10 189460].
21- Crowe DJ, Helvie MA, Wilson TE. Breast infection: mammographic and sonographic findings with clinical correlation. Invest Radiol 1995; 30:582–7.
22- Dawson JS, Wilson AR. Short-term recall for “probably benign†mammographic lesions detected in a three yearly screening programme. Clin Radiol 1994; 49:391–5.
23- Skaane P, Skjorten F. Ultrasonographic evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma. Acta Radiol 1999; 40:369–75.
24- Goodman DN, Boutross-Tadross O, Jong RA. Mammographic features of pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast with pathological correlation. Can Assoc Radiol J 1995; 46:296–301.
25- Elson BC, Helvie MA, Frank TS, Wilson TE, Adler DD. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mode of presentation, mammographic appearance and frequency of nodal metastases. Am J Roentgenol AJR 1993; 161:1173–6.
26- Rissanen T, Pamilo M, Suramo I. Ultrasonography as a guidance method in the evaluation of mammographically detected nonpalpable breast lesions of suspected malignancy. Acta Radiol 1998; 39:292-7. [9571946]
27- Zare Z, Langroudi TF. Findings of Breast Sonography in Patients with Focal Asymmetric Breast Density on Mammography. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 2011; 13(6)
28- Sperber F, Metser U, Gat A, Shalmon A, Yaal-Hahoshen N. Focal asymmetric breast density: mammographic, sonographic and pathological correlation in 97 lesions—a call to restrain biopsies. Isr Med AssocJ 2007; 9:720-3. [17987760].
29- Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 2001; 219:186–91.
30- Kopans DB. Interpreting the mammogram. In: McAllister L, ed. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007; 365-479.
