Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Correlation Between Ultrasound BI-Rads 4 Breast Lesions and Fine Needle Cytology Categories in a Sample of Iraqi Female Patients Cover

Correlation Between Ultrasound BI-Rads 4 Breast Lesions and Fine Needle Cytology Categories in a Sample of Iraqi Female Patients

Open Access
|Jan 2024

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68: 394-424.
  2. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:734-742.
  3. Spak DA, Plaxco JS, Santiago L, et al. BI-RADS((R)) fifth edition: A summary of changes. Diagn Interv Imaging 2017;98:179-90.
  4. Elverici E, Barca AN, Aktas H, et al. Non-palpable BIRADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation. Diagn Interv Radiol 2015;21:189-94.
  5. Heinig J, Witteler R, Schmitz R, et al. Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32:573-8.
  6. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, et al. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome. Radiology 2008;248:773-81.
  7. Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Chapman A, et al. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(4): Cd009632.
  8. Zonderland HM, Pope TL Jr, Nieborg AJ. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1743-50
  9. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999; 211:845-50
  10. Hirunpat S, Tanomkiat W, Khojarern R, Arpakupakul N. Accuracy of the mammographic report category according to BIRADS. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88:62-5
  11. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385-91
  12. Carl J. D’Orsi, MD, Editor and Chair, Committee on BI-RADS® Edward A. Sickles, MD, Chair, Subcommittee on BI-RADS® Mammography. Ellen B. Mendelson, MD, Chair, Subcommittee on BI-RADS® Ultrasound Elizabeth A. Morris, MD, Chair, Subcommittee on BI-RADS® MRI. 2013.
  13. Morris KT, Pommier RF, Morris A, Schmidt WA, Beagle G, Alexander PW, et al. Usefulness of the triple test score for palpable breast masses; discussion 1012-3. Arch Surg. 2001;136(9):1008-12.
  14. H. Zakhour and C. Wells, Diagnostic Cytopathology of the Breast, Churchill Livingstone, London, UK, 1999.
  15. Goyal P, Sehgal S, Ghosh S, Aggarwal D, Shukla P, Kumar A, et al. Histopathological correlation of atypical (c3) and suspicious (c4) categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast. Int J Breast Cancer. 2013;2013:965498.
  16. Kanhough R, Jorda M, Gomez-Fernandez C, Wang H, Mirzabeigi M, Ghorab Z, et al. Atypical and suspicious diagnoses in breast aspiration cytology-is there a need for two categories? Cancer 2004; 102:164-167.
  17. Deb RA, Matthews P, Elston CW, et al. An audit of “equivocal” (C3) and “suspicious” (C4) categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast. Cytopathology 2001;12:219-26
  18. Chaiwun B, Sukhamwang N, Lekawanvijit S, Sukapan K, Rangdaeng S, Muttarak M, et al. Atypical and suspicious categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: histological and mammographical correlation and clinical significance. Singapore medical journal. 2005;46(12):706
  19. Qadri SK, Sejwal P, Priyadarshni R, Jaiswal M, Khandewal R, Khanna M. Spectrum of breast diseases: Histopathological and immunohistochemical study from North India. Gulf J Oncolog 2019;1:6-13.
  20. Gandomkar Z, Mello-Thoms C. Visual search in breast imaging: A review. Br J Radiol 2019:20190057.
  21. Rana C, Ramakant P, Babu S, Singh K, Mishra A, Mouli S. Unusual breast neoplasm with diagnostic and management challenges. Indian J Surg Oncol 2018; 9:328-335.
  22. Mohson KI, Alwan NAS, Abdul Kareem J. Concordance of Ultrasound and Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology Findings in BIRADS IV Breast Lesions. International Journal of Science and Research 2018; 7 (4):1644-1647.
  23. Nassar A. Core needle biopsy versus fine needle aspiration biopsy in breast: a historical perspective and opportunities in the modern era. Diagn Cytopathol 2011; 39:380-388.
  24. Lee H-B, Joung J-G, Kim J. The use of FNA samples for whole-exome sequencing and detection of somatic mutations in breast cancer surgical specimens. Cancer Cytopathol 2015;123:669-677.
  25. Willems SM, van Deurzen CHM, van Diest PJ. Diagnosis of breast lesions: fine-needle aspiration cytology or core needle biopsy? A review. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65: 287-292.
  26. Obrzut M, Cholewa M, Baran J, Obrzut-Palusińska A, Kurczab E. Does fine-needle aspiration biopsy still have a place in the diagnosis of breast lesions? Prz Menopauzalny 2018;17(1):28-31.
  27. Filho DD, Zignani JM, Zignani PM, Teixeira RM, Biesdorf M, Viegas JP, et al. Accuracy of breast ultrasound BI-RADS classification and final pathological assessment of breast lesions submitted to core biopsy or fine needle aspiration of a breast diagnostic referral center in South Brazil. Cancer Res 2009; 69(2): 19-23.
  28. Raza S, Goldkamp AL, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL. US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. Radiographics 2010; 30(5):1199-1213.
  29. Mustafa AA. BI-RADS 4 and 5 breast lesions: correlation between sonographic findings and histopathological results following ultrasound-guided FNAC. kufa Journal for Nursing sciences 2014; 4 (2):188-195.
  30. Abedalrahman S. Accuracy of Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy (F.N.A.B) in Diagnosis of Breast Lump. AL-Kindy College Medical Journal 2020; 15(2): 9-12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.47723/kcmj.v15i2.152
  31. Mustafa A, Hasan N, Khalel E. Initiating opportunistic breast cancer screening program for asymptomatic self-referring women in Iraq. J Fac Med Bagdad 2016; 58(4):342-347. Available from: http://iqjmc.uobagh-dad.edu.iq/index.php/19JFacMedBaghdad36/article/view/281
  32. Park CJ, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Yoon JH, Kim MJ. Reliability of Breast Ultrasound BI-RADS Final Assessment in Mammographically Negative Patients with Nipple Discharge and Radiologic Predictors of Malignancy. J Breast Cancer 2016;19(3):308-315.
  33. Gokhale S. Ultrasound characterization of breast masses. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2009; 19(3):242-247.
  34. Kim YR, Kim HS, Kim HW. Are Irregular Hypoechoic Breast Masses on Ultrasound Always Malignancies? A Pictorial Essay. Korean J Radiol 2015; 16(6):1266-1275.
  35. Arul P, Masilamani S, Akshatha C. Fine needle aspiration cytology of atypical (C3) and suspicious (C4) categories in the breast and its histopathologic correlation. J Cytol 2016;33(2):76-79.
  36. Mendoza P, Lacambra M, Tan PH, Tse GM. Fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: the nonmalignant categories. Patholog Res Int 2011; 2011:547580.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sjecr-2021-0048 | Journal eISSN: 2956-2090 | Journal ISSN: 2956-0454
Language: English
Page range: 297 - 304
Submitted on: Mar 22, 2021
Accepted on: Jun 19, 2021
Published on: Jan 2, 2024
Published by: University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Hiba Mohammed Abdulwahid, Zahraa Mohammed Yahya, Furat Nidhal, Farah A.J. AL Zahwi, Muna Jumaa Ali, published by University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.