Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Breast Imaging Studies in Pathologically Confirmed Cases: Comparison of T-scan with Mammography and Ultrasonography.
10.3348/jkrs.1998.39.3.613
- Author:
Ho Seok KIM
1
;
Ki Keun OH
;
Woo Cheol KWON
;
Hong Joo SON
;
Eun Kyung KIM
Author Information
1. Yonsei University, College of Medicine, Department of Diagnostic Radiology.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Breast neoplasm, radiography;
Breast neoplasm, diagnosiss
- MeSH:
Breast Diseases;
Breast*;
Carcinoma, Ductal;
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating;
Diagnosis;
Humans;
Mammography*;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Ultrasonography*
- From:Journal of the Korean Radiological Society
1998;39(3):613-619
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of mammography, Ultrasonography(US) and T-scan in pathologically confirmed breast diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients withpathologically confirmed breast diseases who had undergone T-scan and mammography and/or US were retrospectivelyreviewed. Cases were categorized as normal, benign, or malignant, and on the basis of disease entity and masssize, the results were compared with pathologic diagnosis. For the of t scans, the conductance ratio was alsoused. RESULTS: Twenty cases were benign and 18 were malignant. The sensitivity, specificity and positivepredictive value of mammography were 100%, 70%, 74%;respectively. For US, the corresponding figures were 100%,82%, 88%, and for T-scan, 33%, 85%, 67%. Between masses with a diameter of less than 2cm and more than 2cm, thesensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of mammography and US demonstrated no significantdifference, except in some cases ; for T-scan however, the respective results were 10%, 80%, 33% when lesion sizewas less than 2cm, and 56%, 90%, 83% when lesions were larger than 2cm. The diagnostic efficacy of T-scan was thusgreater for larger lesions than for smaller ones. With regard to the conductance ratio of T-scan no pathologicallymalignant lesions showed high suspicion of malignancy but 33% showed moderate suspicion. CONCLUSION: Mammographyand US were useful in diagnosing breast malignancy. T-scan was less efficient for the diagnosis of breastmalignancies smaller than 2cm, and of infiltrating ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ. They may thus beconsidered a complementary to mammography and ultrasound examination.
