Correlation analysis between ultrasonography and mammography with other risk factors related to breast cancer

ZhangCui Xu,Wenxiao; Xu,Cui; Li,Rui; Cui,Guanghe; Wang,Minmin; Wang,Min

doi:10.3892/ol.2019.10246

Correlation analysis between ultrasonography and mammography with other risk factors related to breast cancer

Authors:
- Wenxiao ZhangCui Xu
- Cui Xu
- Rui Li
- Guanghe Cui
- Minmin Wang
- Min Wang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou, Shandong 256600, P.R. China, Department of Health Management, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou, Shandong 256600, P.R. China
Published online on: April 12, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10246
Pages: 5511-5516
Copyright: © ZhangCui Xu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Value and correlation analysis between ultrasound and mammography in the diagnosis and other risk factors related to breast cancer were explored. A total of 1,473 patients who underwent breast color ultrasonography and molybdenum target X‑ray examination in Binzhou Medical University Hospital from March 2017 to August 2018 were collected, and the patient's ultrasound and mammography results were compared, also the pathological biopsy was used as the reference golden criteria to calculate the value of both test methods and the value of combined diagnosis in breast cancer. The risk factors associated with breast cancer were analyzed. Among the 1,473 patients, 387 breast cancer patients were detected by ultrasonography, 351 by mammography and 339 cases by combined diagnosis. A total of 314 cases were diagnosed as breast cancer after pathological biopsy. However, there were significant differences in tumor size, stages, and BI‑RADS grades (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the diagnostic efficacy between ultrasonography and mammography (P>0.05), however, the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasonography combined with mammography was significantly better than the two single tests (P<0.05). After logistic regression analysis, there was no significant correlation between residence address, height, blood type, ethnicity, or education with breast cancer (P>0.05). However, age, fertility status, and BMI were all risk factors related to breast cancer (OR>1; P<0.05). In conclusion, ultrasonography combined with mammography can effectively improve the early diagnosis rate of breast cancer, however, the patient's age, birth status, and BMI may affect the results of ultrasonography and mammography. In clinical practice, it is necessary to determine the imaging results in combination with the actual situation of the patients to improve the diagnosis rate of breast cancer.

View Figures

View References

1	DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Goding Sauer A, Kramer JL, Smith RA and Jemal A: Breast cancer statistics, 2015: Convergence of incidence rates between black and white women. CA Cancer J Clin. 66:31–42. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Coughlin SS and Ekwueme DU: Breast cancer as a global health concern. Cancer Epidemiol. 33:315–318. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Li T, Mello-Thoms C and Brennan PC: Descriptive epidemiology of breast cancer in China: incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 159:395–406. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Ghoncheh M, Pournamdar Z and Salehiniya H: Incidence and mortality and epidemiology of breast cancer in the world. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 17 (S3). 43–46. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar
5	Han W and Kang SY; Korean Breast Cancer Society, : Relationship between age at diagnosis and outcome of premenopausal breast cancer: age less than 35 years is a reasonable cut-off for defining young age-onset breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 119:193–200. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Ercan C, van Diest PJ and Vooijs M: Mammary development and breast cancer: the role of stem cells. Curr Mol Med. 11:270–285. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Collignon J, Lousberg L, Schroeder H and Jerusalem G: Triple-negative breast cancer: treatment challenges and solutions. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 8:93–107. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
8	Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Kramer JL, Rowland JH, Stein KD, Alteri R and Jemal A: Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 66:271–289. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ and Kramer BS: Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 375:1438–1447. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, Shiono YN, Saito H, Kuriyama S, Tohno E, et al J-START investigator groups, : Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 387:341–348. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M and Conant EF: Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2:737–743. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Veronesi U, Boyle P, Goldhirsch A, Orecchia R and Viale G: Breast cancer. Lancet. 365:1727–1741. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Tadayyon H, Sadeghi-Naini A, Wirtzfeld L, Wright FC and Czarnota G: Quantitative ultrasound characterization of locally advanced breast cancer by estimation of its scatterer properties. Med Phys. 41:0129032014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Pfarl G and Helbich TH: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-German version. Rofo. 174:921–926. 2002.(In German). PubMed/NCBI
15	Giuliano V and Giuliano C: Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging. 37:480–486. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Olsen O and Gøtzsche PC: Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4:CD0018772001.
17	Oh CM, Won YJ, Jung KW, Kong HJ, Cho H, Lee JK, Lee DH and Lee KH; Community of Population-Based Regional Cancer Registries, : Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2013. Cancer Res Treat. 48:436–450. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Poortmans PM, Collette S, Kirkove C, Van Limbergen E, Budach V, Struikmans H, Collette L, Fourquet A, Maingon P, Valli M, et al EORTC Radiation Oncology and Breast Cancer Groups, : Internal mammary and medial mupraclavicular irradiation in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 373:317–327. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Belani CP, Schreeder MT, Steis RG, Guidice RA, Marsland TA, Butler EH and Ramalingam SS: Cetuximab in combination with carboplatin and docetaxel for patients with metastatic or advanced-stage nonsmall cell lung cancer: a multicenter phase 2 study. Cancer. 113:2512–2517. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Bianchini G, Balko JM, Mayer IA, Sanders ME and Gianni L: Triple-negative breast cancer: challenges and opportunities of a heterogeneous disease. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 13:674–690. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Dobrosavljević A, Rakić S, Nikoli B, Raznatović SJ, Dikić SD, Milosević Z, Jurisić A and Skrobić M: Diagnostic value of breast ultrasound in mammography BI-RADS 0 and clinically indeterminate or suspicious of malignancy breast lesions. Vojnosanit Pregl. 73:239–245. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Zhang H, Tan H, Gao J, Wei Y, Yu Z and Zhou Y: The use of sequential X-ray, CT and MRI in the preoperative evaluation of breast-conserving surgery. Exp Ther Med. 12:1275–1278. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Tsigginou A, Gkali C, Chalazonitis A, Feida E, Vlachos DE, Zagouri F, Rellias I and Dimitrakakis C: Adding the power of iodinated contrast media to the credibility of mammography in breast cancer diagnosis. Br J Radiol. 89:201603972016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Bae S, Yoon JH, Moon HJ, Kim MJ and Kim EK: Breast microcalcifications: diagnostic outcomes according to image-guided biopsy method. Korean J Radiol. 16:996–1005. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Chen HL, Zhou MQ, Tian W, Meng KX and He HF: Effect of age on breast cancer patient prognoses: a population-based study using the SEER 18 database. PLoS One. 11:e01654092016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Mullooly M, Yang HP, Falk RT, Nyante SJ, Cora R, Pfeiffer RM, Radisky DC, Visscher DW, Hartmann LC, Carter JM, et al: Relationship between crown-like structures and sex-steroid hormones in breast adipose tissue and serum among postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 19:82017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Jeon SY, Hwang KA and Choi KC: Effect of steroid hormones, estrogen and progesterone, on epithelial mesenchymal transition in ovarian cancer development. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 158:1–8. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI