Affiliation:
1. Senior Resident, Dept. of General Surgery, Dr Sonelal Patel Autonoumous State Medical College Pratapgarh
2. Senior Consultant, Dept. of General Surgery, Raja Pratap Bahadur District Hospital Pratapgarh
3. Senior Resident, Dept. of General Surgery, Motilal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj
Abstract
Background: Carcinoma of breast is the most common malignancy diagnosed in women worldwide. Pathological diagnosis of the breast lump is
established using ne needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), core needle biopsy or surgical biopsy. Ultrasonography (USG) and mammography are
the important tools in early detection, prompt treatment and favourable outcome leading to increased survival rate in younger females. FNAC is
safe, least invasive and inexpensive. However, it is plagued by high false negative rates and insufciency rates .Correlation of the pathologic result
with the imaging ndings after biopsy is found to be useful to validate the biopsy result and to offer subsequent management. To correlateAim:
radiological, cytological as well as histopathological nding of breast mass/lump. A total of 74 patients with suspiciousMaterial And Methods
breast mass were evaluated with cytology and sonomammography. A correlation was done between cytology, sonomammography and
histopathology results individually and combined, taking histopathology as gold standard with ndings recorded as benign, suspicious or
malignancy. Suspicious cases were those, which fell in BIRADS IV category. Correlation that was established between FNAC, BIRADSResults:
by USG and Mammography there was Near Perfect agreement between these methods, and this agreement was statistically signicant(p = <0.001).
A near perfect agreement was also established between BIRADS established by USG and Mammography complementing each other.
Conclusions: Through our study it has been well established that the FNAC, Mammography BIRADS and USG BIRADS can very well
complement the Biopsy ndings of the breast mass which is considered to be the gold standard.
Reference15 articles.
1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11.Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr, accessed on September 12, 2013.
2. Brunicardi F, Brunicardi F, Andersen D et al. (2009): Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. 9th Edition.McGraw-Hill Education.
3. Assi H, Khoury K, Dbouk H et al. (2013): Epidemiology and prognosis of breast cancer in young women. J Thorac Dis. 5(1): S2-8.
4. Haghighatkhah H, Shafii M, Khayamzade M et al. (2009): Determination of compliance with mammography or ultrasound reports of pathology reports malignant and benign disease breast. Quart IranBreast Dis., 2: 27-32.
5. Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Caudry DJ, Sneige N, Frable WJ, Berg WA, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: Results from the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V1. Radiology 2001; 219 : 785-92.