4.5 Article

Targeted Ultrasound in Women Younger Than 30 Years With Focal Breast Signs or Symptoms: Outcomes Analyses and Management Implications

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 195, 期 6, 页码 1472-1477

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.4396

关键词

clinical management; outcomes; targeted ultrasound; young women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess the accuracy of targeted breast ultrasound in women younger than 30 years presenting with focal breast signs or symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Retrospective review of the electronic medical records identified all ultrasound examinations from January 1, 2002, through August 30, 2006, performed for focal breast signs or symptoms in women younger than 30 years. BI-RADS assessments were recorded. Outcomes were determined by biopsy, 24 months of ultrasound surveillance, and linkage with the regional tumor registry. The overall cancer yield, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV) 2, and PPV3 of ultrasound were calculated. RESULTS. Among 830 study patients, lesions were assessed as BI-RADS category 1 or 2 in 526 (63.4%), BI-RADS category 3 in 140 (16.9%), BI-RADS category 4 in 163 (19.6%), and BI-RADS category 5 in one (0.1%) patient. Three malignancies were detected, for a cancer yield of 0.4%. No BI-RADS category 3 lesions, two BI-RADS category 4 lesions, and the single BI-RADS category 5 lesion were malignant. Ultrasound sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 80.5%, NPV was 100%, PPV2 was 1.8%, and PPV3 was 1.9%. CONCLUSION. Women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms have a very low (0.4%) incidence of malignancy. The 100% sensitivity and NPV of targeted ultrasound in our study substantiates its use as an accurate primary imaging test in this clinical setting. We found no malignancies in BI-RADS category 3 lesions, supporting ultrasound surveillance over biopsy in this patient population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据