Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the accuracy of these two methods and focus on the analysis and management of the false-negative cases.
Methods
Results of full field digital mammography (FFDM) and fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) were obtained and analyzed from a consecutive of 102 women with palpable breast masses, results were correlated with the histopathological findings.
Results
Of the 102 cases, malignancy was confirmed in 43 cases (42.16%) by final pathological examination, the sensitivity and specificity of cancer detection with FNA cytology was 90.7% (39/43) and 89.8% (53/59), respectively, the whole accuracy was 90.2% (92/102), with a positive predictive value of 86.7% (39/45) and a negative predictive value of 93.0% (53/57). FFDM gave a sensitivity of 88.4% (38/43), specificity of 83.1% (49/59), and whole accuracy 85.3% (87/102), the positive predictive value and negative predictive value was 79.2% (38/48) and 90.7% (49/54), respectively. All the FNAC-negative cancer cases were suggestive of malignancy by FFDM findings, however, the benign cases which present as equivocal finding by FNA cytology, could not be ruled out the presence of malignancy.
Conclusion
FNAC and FFDM both are accurate, effective and economical diagnostic modalities, combined use of these two methods can reduced the misdiagnosis rate of breast masses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arisio R, Cuccorese C, Accinelli G, et al. Role of fine needle aspiration biopsy in breast lesions: analysis of a series of 4100 cases. Diagn Cytopathol, 1998, 18: 462–467.
Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer, 2001, 91: 1724–1731.
Mizuno S, Isaji S, Ogawa T, et al. Approach to fine needle aspiration cytology-negative cases of breast cancer. Asian J Surg, 2005, 28: 13–17.
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology, 2004, 233: 830–849.
Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, et al. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA, 2005, 293: 1245–1256.
Zagorianakou P, Fiaccavento S, Zagorianakou N, et al. FNAC: its role, limitations and perspective in the preoperative diagnosis of breast cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol, 2005, 26: 143–149.
Ariga R, Bloom K, Reddy VB, et al. Fine needle aspiration of clinically suspicious palpable breast masses with histopathologic correlation. Am J Surg, 2002, 184: 410–413.
Tsukamoto F, Miyoshi Y, Koyama H, et al. Detection of chromosomal aneusomy by fluorescence in situ hybridization in fine needle aspirates from breast tumors: application to the preoperative diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Cancer, 2000, 90: 373–378.
Oyama T, Koibuchi Y, McKee G. Core needle biopsy (CNB) as a diagnostic method for breast lesions: comparison with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNA). Breast Cancer, 2004, 11: 339–342.
Chaiwun B, Settakorn J, Yaln C, et al. Effectiveness of fine needle aspiration cytology of breast: analysis of 2,375 cases from northern Thailand. Diagn Cytopathol, 2002, 26: 201–205.
Schwartzberg BS, Goates JJ, Keeler SA, et al. Use of advanced breast biopsy instrumentation while performing stereotactic breast biopsies: review of 150 consecutive biopsies. J Am Coll Surg, 2000, 191: 9–15.
Kapur A, Carson PL, Eberhard J, et al. Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2004, 3: 325–334
Usami S, Moriya T, Kasajima A, et al. Pathological aspects of core needle biopsy for non-palpable breast lesions. Breast Cancer, 2005, 12: 272–278.
Smith AP, Hall PA, Marcello DM. Emerging technologies in breast cancer detection. Radial Mange, 2004, 26: 16–24.
Smith JA, Andreopoulou E. An overview of the status of imaging screening technology for breast cancer. Ann Oncol, 2004, 15Suppl 1: I18–I26.
Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology, 2001, 218: 873–880.
Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology, 2003, 229: 877–884.
Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer senoscan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol, 2004, 11: 879–886.
Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program — the Oslo II study. Radiology, 2004, 232: 197–204.
Stomper PC, D’souza DJ, DiNitto PA, et al. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25–79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1996, 167: 1261–1265.
Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med, 2003, 138: 168–175.
Hilleren DJ, Andersson IT, Lindholm K, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: mammographic findings in a 10-year experience. Radiology, 1991, 178: 149–154.
Butler RS, Venta LA, Wiley EL, et al. Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1999, 172: 325–330.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, Y., Li, J., Ji, Z. et al. Combined use of fine needle aspiration cytology and full field digital mammography in preoperative assessment of breast masses. Chin. -Ger. J. Clin. Oncol. 7, 473–476 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10330-008-0063-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10330-008-0063-6