ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine the percentage and evaluate the subtle findings of false negative results on mammogram and ultrasonography (US) screening. Methods: A retrospective study involved twelve breast cancer patients who had a negative result of malignancy on both the initial mammogram and US with an equal number of benign or negative cases mixed. One radiologist randomly reviewed all mammograms and US images without any knowledge of the final diagnosis, noting mammographic characteristics of breast density composition, lesion type, size, and morphology according to (BIRADS-LEXICON). Results: The incidence of prospectively false-negative rates was 7.3% (7 of 9,582). The type of subtle findings characterized on the prior mammogram included a macrolobulated mass in one of seven lesions (14.3%), a macrolobulated mass with amorphous microcalcification in one (14.3%), amorphous microcalcification alone in one (14.3%), and asymmetrical breast density on one-view mammogram in two (28.6%). There were two of seven lesions with negative mammogram and positive US findings. Conclusion: There is a small subset of breast cancer, called subtle findings, which can be perceptible but sometimes there are no definite malignant findings on the image interpretation. An understanding of the characteristics of subtle findings in false-negative screens may be a valuable aid in increasing the sensitivity of breast cancer detection.
ABSTRACT
Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize the mammographic and ultrasonographic ( US) findings in interval cancer and to evaluate incidence and additional diagnostic value of US in interval breast cancer. Methods: A retrospective study involved three women who had negative results in both screening mammogram and US within 18 months before a diagnosis of breast cancer. The mammographic and US findings were classified according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, categories 0-5. The method of detection, tumor histologic grade, axillary node status and tumor size were analyzed. Results: The interval cancer incidence in our institute was 3.14 per 10,000 screens. Three interval cancers were found. All patients had heterogenous dense breasts. Two of the three interval cancers could only be identified by US. All of them were invasive cancer with a high-to-intermediate grade (grade 2-3). Conclusions: Adjunctive US is noninvasive and valuable a modality for detection and characterization of interval cancer.
ABSTRACT
Two cases of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) aneurysm were reported; one with atherosclerosis and the other was mycotic in origin. Preoperative investigations included plain radiography, ultrasonography, computed tomography with contrast injection, angiography and nuclearscanning. SMA aneurysm was then diagnosed and the patient underwent operation. Results of the operations were satisfactory. It is suggested that early and correct diagnosis is critical in minimizing morbidity and mortality in the patients with SMA aneurysm.