Correlation Between Ultrasound BI-Rads 4 Breast Lesions and Fine Needle Cytology Categories in a Sample of Iraqi Female Patients

1 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68: 394-424. Search in Google Scholar

2 Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:734-742. Search in Google Scholar

3 Spak DA, Plaxco JS, Santiago L, et al. BI-RADS((R)) fifth edition: A summary of changes. Diagn Interv Imaging 2017;98:179-90. Search in Google Scholar

4 Elverici E, Barca AN, Aktas H, et al. Non-palpable BIRADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation. Diagn Interv Radiol 2015;21:189-94. Search in Google Scholar

5 Heinig J, Witteler R, Schmitz R, et al. Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32:573-8. Search in Google Scholar

6 Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, et al. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome. Radiology 2008;248:773-81. Search in Google Scholar

7 Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Chapman A, et al. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(4): Cd009632. Search in Google Scholar

8 Zonderland HM, Pope TL Jr, Nieborg AJ. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1743-50 Search in Google Scholar

9 Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999; 211:845-50 Search in Google Scholar

10 Hirunpat S, Tanomkiat W, Khojarern R, Arpakupakul N. Accuracy of the mammographic report category according to BIRADS. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88:62-5 Search in Google Scholar

11 Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385-91 Search in Google Scholar

12 Carl J. D’Orsi, MD, Editor and Chair, Committee on BI-RADS® Edward A. Sickles, MD, Chair, Subcommittee on BI-RADS® Mammography. Ellen B. Mendelson, MD, Chair, Subcommittee on BI-RADS® Ultrasound Elizabeth A. Morris, MD, Chair, Subcommittee on BI-RADS® MRI. 2013. Search in Google Scholar

13 Morris KT, Pommier RF, Morris A, Schmidt WA, Beagle G, Alexander PW, et al. Usefulness of the triple test score for palpable breast masses; discussion 1012-3. Arch Surg. 2001;136(9):1008-12. Search in Google Scholar

14 H. Zakhour and C. Wells, Diagnostic Cytopathology of the Breast, Churchill Livingstone, London, UK, 1999. Search in Google Scholar

15 Goyal P, Sehgal S, Ghosh S, Aggarwal D, Shukla P, Kumar A, et al. Histopathological correlation of atypical (c3) and suspicious (c4) categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast. Int J Breast Cancer. 2013;2013:965498. Search in Google Scholar

16 Kanhough R, Jorda M, Gomez-Fernandez C, Wang H, Mirzabeigi M, Ghorab Z, et al. Atypical and suspicious diagnoses in breast aspiration cytology-is there a need for two categories? Cancer 2004; 102:164-167. Search in Google Scholar

17 Deb RA, Matthews P, Elston CW, et al. An audit of “equivocal” (C3) and “suspicious” (C4) categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast. Cytopathology 2001;12:219-26 Search in Google Scholar

18 Chaiwun B, Sukhamwang N, Lekawanvijit S, Sukapan K, Rangdaeng S, Muttarak M, et al. Atypical and suspicious categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: histological and mammographical correlation and clinical significance. Singapore medical journal. 2005;46(12):706 Search in Google Scholar

19 Qadri SK, Sejwal P, Priyadarshni R, Jaiswal M, Khandewal R, Khanna M. Spectrum of breast diseases: Histopathological and immunohistochemical study from North India. Gulf J Oncolog 2019;1:6-13. Search in Google Scholar

20 Gandomkar Z, Mello-Thoms C. Visual search in breast imaging: A review. Br J Radiol 2019:20190057. Search in Google Scholar

21 Rana C, Ramakant P, Babu S, Singh K, Mishra A, Mouli S. Unusual breast neoplasm with diagnostic and management challenges. Indian J Surg Oncol 2018; 9:328-335. Search in Google Scholar

22 Mohson KI, Alwan NAS, Abdul Kareem J. Concordance of Ultrasound and Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology Findings in BIRADS IV Breast Lesions. International Journal of Science and Research 2018; 7 (4):1644-1647. Search in Google Scholar

23 Nassar A. Core needle biopsy versus fine needle aspiration biopsy in breast: a historical perspective and opportunities in the modern era. Diagn Cytopathol 2011; 39:380-388. Search in Google Scholar

24 Lee H-B, Joung J-G, Kim J. The use of FNA samples for whole-exome sequencing and detection of somatic mutations in breast cancer surgical specimens. Cancer Cytopathol 2015;123:669-677. Search in Google Scholar

25 Willems SM, van Deurzen CHM, van Diest PJ. Diagnosis of breast lesions: fine-needle aspiration cytology or core needle biopsy? A review. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65: 287-292. Search in Google Scholar

26 Obrzut M, Cholewa M, Baran J, Obrzut-Palusińska A, Kurczab E. Does fine-needle aspiration biopsy still have a place in the diagnosis of breast lesions? Prz Menopauzalny 2018;17(1):28-31. Search in Google Scholar

27 Filho DD, Zignani JM, Zignani PM, Teixeira RM, Biesdorf M, Viegas JP, et al. Accuracy of breast ultrasound BI-RADS classification and final pathological assessment of breast lesions submitted to core biopsy or fine needle aspiration of a breast diagnostic referral center in South Brazil. Cancer Res 2009; 69(2): 19-23. Search in Google Scholar

28 Raza S, Goldkamp AL, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL. US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. Radiographics 2010; 30(5):1199-1213. Search in Google Scholar

29 Mustafa AA. BI-RADS 4 and 5 breast lesions: correlation between sonographic findings and histopathological results following ultrasound-guided FNAC. kufa Journal for Nursing sciences 2014; 4 (2):188-195. Search in Google Scholar

30 Abedalrahman S. Accuracy of Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy (F.N.A.B) in Diagnosis of Breast Lump. AL-Kindy College Medical Journal 2020; 15(2): 9-12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.47723/kcmj.v15i2.152 Search in Google Scholar

31 Mustafa A, Hasan N, Khalel E. Initiating opportunistic breast cancer screening program for asymptomatic self-referring women in Iraq. J Fac Med Bagdad 2016; 58(4):342-347. Available from: http://iqjmc.uobagh-dad.edu.iq/index.php/19JFacMedBaghdad36/article/view/281 Search in Google Scholar

32 Park CJ, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Yoon JH, Kim MJ. Reliability of Breast Ultrasound BI-RADS Final Assessment in Mammographically Negative Patients with Nipple Discharge and Radiologic Predictors of Malignancy. J Breast Cancer 2016;19(3):308-315. Search in Google Scholar

33 Gokhale S. Ultrasound characterization of breast masses. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2009; 19(3):242-247. Search in Google Scholar

34 Kim YR, Kim HS, Kim HW. Are Irregular Hypoechoic Breast Masses on Ultrasound Always Malignancies? A Pictorial Essay. Korean J Radiol 2015; 16(6):1266-1275. Search in Google Scholar

35 Arul P, Masilamani S, Akshatha C. Fine needle aspiration cytology of atypical (C3) and suspicious (C4) categories in the breast and its histopathologic correlation. J Cytol 2016;33(2):76-79. Search in Google Scholar

36 Mendoza P, Lacambra M, Tan PH, Tse GM. Fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: the nonmalignant categories. Patholog Res Int 2011; 2011:547580. Search in Google Scholar