2014Clinical Misdiagnosis & MistherapyRequires access

Analysis on the Causes of Misdiagnosis of Ultrasound in Minimal Breast Carcinoma

Yang Pei-shen

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective To investigate the causes of misdiagnosis of minimal breast carcinoma( MBC) by ultrasound.Methods We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and ultrasonic data of 90 cases of MBC which confirmed by pathology. Results Among the 90 cases,58 cases were diagnosed accurately,and 32 cases were misdiagnosed. Twenty cases were misdiagnosed as having breast fibroadenoma,ten cases were misdiagnosed as having lobular hyperplasia,and two as having adenosis of the breast. The range of largest diameter of tumors was 0. 5-1. 0 cm in 55 cases,among whom,37 were diagnosed correctively by ultrasound,and 18 were misdiagnosed,and there were significant differences of edges and microcalcification signs between the two groups( P 0. 05). There were 35 patients with tumor diameter less than or equal to 0. 5 cm,among whom,21 were diagnosed correctively by ultrasound,and 14 were misdiagnosed,and there were significant differences of aspect ratio and nodule number between the two groups( P 0. 05). The tumor edges in patients with different tumor diameters( 0. 5-1. 0and ≤5 cm) showed significant difference( P 0. 05). Conclusion The nodules of MBC patients showing diameter of 0. 5-1. 0 cm,clear edges and no calcification in ultrasound may be easily misdiagnosed. Furthermore,multiple nodules with diameter less than or equal to 0. 5 cm and aspect ratio less than 1 were also easily misdiagnosed.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective To investigate the causes of misdiagnosis of minimal breast carcinoma( MBC) by ultrasound.Methods We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and ultrasonic data of 90 cases of MBC which confirmed by pathology. Results Among the 90 cases,58 cases were diagnosed accurately,and 32 cases were misdiagnosed. Twenty cases were misdiagnosed as having breast fibroadenoma,ten cases were misdiagnosed as having lobular hyperplasia,and two as having adenosis of the breast. The range of largest diameter of tumors was 0. 5-1. 0 cm in 55 cases,among whom,37 were diagnosed correctively by ultrasound,and 18 were misdiagnosed,and there were significant differences of edges and microcalcification signs between the two groups( P 0. 05). There were 35 patients with tumor diameter less than or equal to 0. 5 cm,among whom,21 were diagnosed correctively by ultrasound,and 14 were misdiagnosed,and there were significant differences of aspect ratio and nodule number between the two groups( P 0. 05). The tumor edges in patients with different tumor diameters( 0. 5-1. 0and ≤5 cm) showed significant difference( P 0. 05). Conclusion The nodules of MBC patients showing diameter of 0. 5-1. 0 cm,clear edges and no calcification in ultrasound may be easily misdiagnosed. Furthermore,multiple nodules with diameter less than or equal to 0. 5 cm and aspect ratio less than 1 were also easily misdiagnosed.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective To investigate the causes of misdiagnosis of minimal breast carcinoma( MBC) by ultrasound.Methods We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and ultrasonic data of 90 cases of MBC which confirmed by pathology. Results Among the 90 cases,58 cases were diagnosed accurately,and 32 cases were misdiagnosed. Twenty cases were misdiagnosed as having breast fibroadenoma,ten cases were misdiagnosed as having lobular hyperplasia,and two as having adenosis of the breast. The range of largest diameter of tumors was 0. 5-1. 0 cm in 55 cases,among whom,37 were diagnosed correctively by ultrasound,and 18 were misdiagnosed,and there were significant differences of edges and microcalcification signs between the two groups( P 0. 05). There were 35 patients with tumor diameter less than or equal to 0. 5 cm,among whom,21 were diagnosed correctively by ultrasound,and 14 were misdiagnosed,and there were significant differences of aspect ratio and nodule number between the two groups( P 0. 05). The tumor edges in patients with different tumor diameters( 0. 5-1. 0and ≤5 cm) showed significant difference( P 0. 05). Conclusion The nodules of MBC patients showing diameter of 0. 5-1. 0 cm,clear edges and no calcification in ultrasound may be easily misdiagnosed. Furthermore,multiple nodules with diameter less than or equal to 0. 5 cm and aspect ratio less than 1 were also easily misdiagnosed.

Key concepts: Medicine, Ultrasound, Microcalcification, Fibroadenoma, Calcification, Nodule (geology), Radiology, Breast ultrasound

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Analysis on the Causes of Misdiagnosis of Ultrasound in Minimal Breast Carcinoma — Research Paper | ScholarLens