DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF MAMMOGRAPHY IN CORRELATION WITH ULTRASOUND FOR BREAST CANCER DETECTION IN YOUNG FEMALES WITH POSITIVE FAMILY HISTORY OF BREAST CANCER: USING HISTOPATHOLOGY AS GOLD STANDARD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71000/8r8tzf91Keywords:
Breast Neoplasms, Diagnostic Imaging, Family History, Histopathology, Mammography, Sensitivity and Specificity, UltrasonographyAbstract
Background: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide and a major cause of mortality, particularly in Asian populations. Timely and accurate diagnosis of breast masses plays a critical role in guiding effective treatment and reducing disease burden. Mammography and ultrasonography are widely used imaging modalities for early detection, yet their diagnostic accuracy may vary in younger women with denser breast tissue. Histopathology remains the gold standard for distinguishing benign from malignant breast lesions, but it is invasive and resource-intensive.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography in detecting breast cancer in young females with a positive family history, using histopathology as the gold standard.
Methods: A comparative accuracy study was conducted at the Armed Forces Institute of Radiology and Imaging (AFIRI), Rawalpindi, from December 2023 to June 2024. A total of 125 females aged 15–45 years, with positive family history and presenting with palpable breast masses, were included. All participants underwent mammography and ultrasonography, followed by core needle biopsy for histopathological confirmation. Imaging findings were classified using BI-RADS criteria. Data were analyzed using SPSS v25.0 and OpenEpi 1.0 to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall diagnostic accuracy.
Results: The mean age of patients was 35.14 ± 6.14 years (range: 17–44) and mean tumor size was 14.69 ± 12.08 mm (range: 1.50–59.60). Mammography demonstrated sensitivity of 96.43%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 97.18%, and diagnostic accuracy of 98.40%. Ultrasound showed sensitivity of 98.21%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 98.57%, and accuracy of 99.20%. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.98 for mammography and 0.99 for ultrasound, with a standard error of 0.01 for both.
Conclusion: Both mammography and ultrasound demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance in distinguishing benign from malignant breast masses. Ultrasound offers additional advantages as a safe, economical, and non-invasive modality, making it particularly suitable in resource-limited settings.
References
Modhia D, Agarwal S, Yadav P, Joshi A. A clinico-pathological study of benign breast disease at tertiary care centre. International Surgery Journal. 2022;9(6):1210-4.
Yu AYL, Thomas SM, DiLalla GD, Greenup RA, Hwang ES, Hyslop T, et al. Disease characteristics and mortality among Asian women with breast cancer. Cancer. 2022;128(5):1024-37.
Dawoud BM, Darweesh AN, Hefeda MM, Kamal RM, Younis RL. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced mammography in the characterization of breast asymmetry. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2022;53(1):259
Conti M, Morciano F, Amodeo S, Gori E, Romanucci G, Belli P, et al. Special Types of Breast Cancer: Clinical Behavior and Radiological Appearance. Journal of Imaging. 2024;10(8):182.
Tavakoli N, Karimi M, Norouzi A, Karimi N, Samavi S, Soroushmehr SR. Detection of abnormalities in mammograms using deep features. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 2023:1-13.
Iacob R, Iacob ER, Stoicescu ER, Ghenciu DM, Cocolea DM, Constantinescu A, et al. Evaluating the Role of Breast Ultrasound in Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Comprehensive Narrative Review. Bioengineering. 2024;11(3):262.
Ayana G, Dese K, Choe S-w. Transfer learning in breast cancer diagnoses via ultrasound imaging. Cancers. 2021;13(4):738.
Pakdeesaneha T, Chankow K, Techarungchaikul S, Thongsima T, Kongtia M, Tharasanit T. Comparison of Fine‐Needle Aspiration and Core Needle Biopsy for the Pre‐Operative Diagnosis of Canine and Feline Mammary Gland Tumours. Veterinary and Comparative Oncology. 2024;22(4):566-73.
Cengiz AB, Tansuker HD, Gul R, Emre F, Demirbas T, Oktay MF. Comparison of preoperative diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in parotid gland neoplasms. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2021;278(10):4067-74.
Iranmakani S, Mortezazadeh T, Sajadian F, Ghaziani MF, Ghafari A, Khezerloo D, et al. A review of various modalities in breast imaging: technical aspects and clinical outcomes. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2020;51(1):57.
Wu J, Kong R, Tian S, Li H, Liu JS, Xu Z, et al. Advances in Ultrasound-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy of Breast Microcalcifications. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021;47(5):1172-81.
Sechel G, Rogozea LM, Roman NA, Ciurescu D, Cocuz ME, Manea RM. Analysis of breast cancer subtypes and their correlations with receptors and ultrasound. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2021;62(1):269-78.
Xu HF, Wang H, Liu Y, Wang XY, Guo XL, Liu HW, et al. Baseline Performance of Ultrasound-Based Strategies in Breast Cancer Screening Among Chinese Women. Acad Radiol. 2024;31(12):4772-9.
Berg WA. BI-RADS 3 on Screening Breast Ultrasound: What Is It and What Is the Appropriate Management? J Breast Imaging. 2021;3(5):527-38.
Gilbert FJ, Payne NR, Allajbeu I, Yit L, Vinnicombe S, Lyburn I, et al. Comparison of supplemental breast cancer imaging techniques-interim results from the BRAID randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2025;405(10493):1935-44.
Fatehi P, Mahboubi-Fooladi Z, Dastmardi M, Jafarzadeh Esfehani R, Khameneh Bagheri A. The correlation between imaging findings and breast cancer cell receptors status. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2023;54(3):446-50.
Pawlak M, Rudnicki W, Brandt Ł, Dobrowolska M, Borkowska A, Szpor J, et al. Enhanced Detection of Suspicious Breast Lesions: A Comparative Study of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Automated Breast Ultrasound in 117 Patients with Core Needle Biopsy. Med Sci Monit. 2023;29:e941072.
Glechner A, Wagner G, Mitus JW, Teufer B, Klerings I, Böck N, et al. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;3(3):Cd009632.
Engin A. Obesity-Associated Breast Cancer: Analysis of Risk Factors and Current Clinical Evaluation. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2024;1460:767-819.
Omisore AD, Sutton EJ, Akinola RA, Towoju AG, Akhigbe A, Ebubedike UR, et al. Population-Level Access to Breast Cancer Early Detection and Diagnosis in Nigeria. JCO Glob Oncol. 2023;9:e2300093.
Henderson JT, Webber EM, Weyrich MS, Miller M, Melnikow J. Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama. 2024;331(22):1931-46.
Real A, Morais P, Barbosa LCN, Gomes-Fonseca J, Oliveira B, Moreira AHJ, et al. A sensorized needle guide for ultrasound assisted breast biopsy. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2022;2022:865-8.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hafiza Momina Siddiquei , Farah Afzal, Hafiz Muhammad Muazzam, Nigaar Ayesha Iftikhar, Kneez Zainab, Sheharbano Ahmed Khan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
