Upload
vianca
View
54
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Causes of missing mammographic lesions. Dense parenchyma that obscures a lesion Poor positioning or technique Lesion location outside the field of view Lack of perception of an abnormality that is present Incorrect interpretation of a suspect finding Subtle features of malignancy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Causes of missing mammographic lesions
• Dense parenchyma that obscures a lesion• Poor positioning or technique• Lesion location outside the field of view• Lack of perception of an abnormality that is
present • Incorrect interpretation of a suspect finding• Subtle features of malignancy• A slowly changing malignancy
• . Breast cancers are easily missed when they appear as focal areas of asymmetry or distortion (eg, invasive lobular carcinoma)
• when their appearance suggests a benign cause (eg, medullary and mucinous [colloid] invasive ductal carcinomas, which usually manifest as mostly circumscribed masses).
• Bird et al (6) found that 77 of 320 cancers (24%) in a screening population were missed, primarily due to dense breasts and a developing density that was not identified by the radiologist
• Goergen et al (7) found that cancers missed at screening
mammography were significantly lower in density and were more often seen on only one of two views than were detected cancers
Dense Breast, Palpable mass, BIRADS0
Any patient with dense breast parenchyma, a palpable mass, and negative mammographic findings should undergo US for further evaluation of the mass.
Obscuerd mass BIRADS0
BIRADS2
The negative predictive value of US with mammography for a palpable lesion to be 99.8% and 100%, respectively. Moy et al (11) found the negative predictive value of US with mammography for a palpable mass to be 97.4%. However, a palpable mass that appears solid at US warrants further evaluation with biopsy.
POOR POSITIONING
PROPER POSITIONING BIRADS0
Creative Additional Views &Positioning
LAT MED Oblique View
Cleavage View
craniocaudal RL = “craniocaudal rolled laterally”). craniocaudal RL = “craniocaudal rolled laterally”).
Improper Imaging Technique
Proper image
Radiologists’ Errors
• Lack of Perception• Satisfaction of search• Error of Interpretation• Do not compare with Previous study
MIRROR IMAGE INTERPRETATION
Mirror Image Interpretation
SUBTLE FINDING MIRROR
MISSED CA SATISFACTION OF SEARCH
NIPPLE TO LESION -ARC MEASUREMENT
MUCNOUS CIRCUMSCRIBED CA
NEW ASYMMETRIC DENSITY ILCA
Slow Growing CA
Tubular CA
ConclusionAlthough mammography is the standard of reference for the detection of early breast cancer, as many as 30% of breast cancers may be missed. To reduce the possibility of missing a cancer, the radiologist should take the following steps when interpreting mammographic findings:• Do not rely on screening views alone to diagnose a detected
abnormality; complete the evaluation with diagnostic mammography.• Review clinical data and use US to help assess a palpable or
mammographically detected mass.• Be strict about positioning and technical requirements to optimize
image quality.• Be alert to subtle features of breast cancers.• Compare current images with multiple prior studies to look for subtle
increases in lesion size.• Look for other lesions when one abnormality is seen.• Judge a lesion by its most malignant features.
Summary of Mammographic Report & BIRADS
Reporting Mammogram Using BIRADS
• Brief description of reason for the MMG• Brief description of the type• Comparison with previous MMG• Description of finding• Final assessment categories• Recommendation
BIRADS0, Recommendations
• Dense Breast in screening ,young high risk: MRI• Dense Breast & Palpable Mass: US, Solid, complex
cyst: CNB, Thick- wall cyst: Aspiration• Mass without fat or characteristic Mic Cal: US,
Solid, <5mm suspicious: VAB, circumscribed: local Mag view
• Absence of previous exam• Indeterminate findings: Additional views
BIRADS 1, negative for malignancy
• Normal fatty breast: Routine FU• Negative symmetrical SFG, No change or
neodensity: FU• Heterogeneously symmetrical dense, no
pertinent finding, no change or neodensity, may recommend US
BIRADS2, Benign finding
• An intra mammary lymph node• Benign mic cals• Fat contained masses• Thin -wall cysts with or without Int echo
BIRADS2
Tangential spot magnification mammogram, obtained after placement of an external marker,BIRADS2
Oil cyst
Rod shape cal
Milk of Calcium
Cystic milk alkaline cal
BIRADS3, Probably benign,<%2 malignancy, Short term FU
• An oval shape, well- defined, circumscribed or macro lobulated mass which is solid, isoechoic, and parallel on US: 6, 12, 24 moths FU, increased size of %25 : CNB
• Monomorph cluster Mic cal: 6,12, 24 months FU
• Focal asymmetry+ nonpalpable+ negative US
B3 became B4
B3 became B2
BIRADS4a, 3-30% malignancy, VAB or CNB
• Probably benign appearance with a tail or mild inhomogeneity on US
• Probably benign but hypo echoic mass• Intra cystic mass, intra ductal papilloma :VAB• Thick wall cyst : Aspiration• Indeterminate Amorphus cluster Mic cal: VAB• Developing density• Focal asymmetry+ palpable lump+ Neg US
Type 2 complex cyst+ doppler,BIRADS4a, CNB
Papillary apocrine hyperplasia with atypical ductal hyperplasia
Infiltrating Ductal Ca
Complex cyst, irregular thick wall
Coarse Hetergenously cluster cal
BIRADS4b 30- 60% malignancy, VAB or CNB
• Round circumscribed masses• Round hypo echoic masses• Structural distortion without history of surgery
or infection: VAB• New asymmetry: VAB
Fine pleomorphic cluster cal
New Amorph cal
BIRADS4c,% 60-95 malignancy
• No classic of malignancy, VAB or CNB • For example: micro lobulated mass
Fine pleomorphic, linear distribution
BIRADS 5, >%95 malignancy
• Speculated mass<5mm: VAB, >5mm: CNB• New density with irregular border < 5mm:
VAB, >5mm: CNB• Linear branching pleomorphic, fine linear or
pleomorphic linear or segmentally distributed cluster mic cal: VAB
Fine linear Seg distributed cal
Linear & amorph cal in a duct
THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR ATTENTION