Positive Predictive Value of Suspicious Findings in Standard Mammography according to Local Compression Mammography Results

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Student of Medicine, Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: By evaluating 47 performed standard mammographies, we found four pathologies including mass, calcification, asymmetric density, and distortion. Positive predictive value (PPV) of each finding was estimated according to local mammographic findings.Methods: In a cross-sectional, descriptive, analytic study, patients who referred to Seyed-al-Shohada Hospital, Isfahan, Iran, during 2010, for standard mammography were included if they agreed to undergo a local compression view as well. Suspicious findings in the standard mammograms were compared with local compression results.Findings: During four months, 693 mammographies were performed. In 63 cases, local compression view was requested. However, only 47 cases accepted to undergo the test. In standard mammography reports, asymmetries (70%) were the most and distortion was the least reported finding. The highest PPV belonged to mass (62%) and the lowest to distortion. As a whole, PPV was 29% for suspicious standard mammographic findings.Conclusion: Decreasing requests for local compression, especially for asymmetries is recommended.

Keywords

References

  1. Guo Y, Sivaramakrishna R, Lu CC, Suri JS, Laxminarayan S. Breast image registration techniques: a survey. Med Biol Eng Comput 2006; 44(1-2): 15-26.
  2. (Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288(3): 321-33.
  3. Bland KL, Beenken SW, Copeland EM. The Breast. In: Brunicardi FC, editor. Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005. p. 453.
  4. Saarenma I. Determinants of Sensitivity of Mammography. Tempre: The Universitasis Tempre; 2001. p. 840.
  5. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42(5): 793-806, v.
  6. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58(2): 71-96.
  7. Faulk RM, Sickles EA. Efficacy of spot compression-magnification and tangential views in mammographic evaluation of palpable breast masses. Radiology 1992; 185(1): 87-90.
  8. Michell MJ. The breast. In: Sutton D, editor. Radiology and Imaging. 7th ed. London: Churchill living stone; 2002. p. 1451.
  9. Berkowitz JE, Gatewood OM, Gayler BW. Equivocal mammographic findings: evaluation with spot compression. Radiology 1989; 171(2): 369-71.
  10. Shakouri Partovi p, Nami F. Results of mammography in women older than 40 years with breast diseases. Armaghane-danesh 2004; 9(35): 67-73.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 29, Issue 170 - Serial Number 170
November and December 2012
Pages 2628-2632

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 October 2011
  • Revise Date: 28 April 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics