DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF ULTRASOUND BI-RADS IN DIAGNOSING BREAST LESIONS UTILIZING THE CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY KEEPING HISTOPATHOLOGY AS A GOLD STANDARD

1Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Ultrasound BI-RADS classification in diagnosing breast lesions utilizing the core needle biopsy method keeping histopathology as a gold standard. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Radiology department of CMH Peshawar incorporating 51 patients having breast lesions as presenting complaints. After performing ultrasonography, lesions were categorized as benign and malignant according to BI-RADS scoring. A core needle Biopsy of lesions was done and histopathology reports were collected. Diagnostic accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive predictive and Negative predictive value of “BI-RADS classification were calculated by analyzing data. Results: The mean age was calculated as 45.63± 16.83 years. According to the BI-RADS score, 17 cases (33.3%) were categorized as benign and 35 cases (66.7%) as malignant while Histopathology reported 20 cases (39.2%) as benign while 31 cases (60.8%) as malig-nant. Diagnostic accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive predictive value Negative predictive value for ultrasound BI-RADS turned out to be 90.19%, 96.77 %, 80.00%, 88.23% and 94.11% respectively. Conclusion: Ultrasound BI-RADS classification has high diagnostic accuracy in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. Universal application of ultrasound BI-RADS guidelines will help in the early diagnosis of malignant breast lesions while avoiding unnecessary biopsies in benign lesions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nisar, U., Anwar, J., Ihsan, H. R., Yadain, S. H., Sultana, S. M., & Khan, M. (2022). DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF ULTRASOUND BI-RADS IN DIAGNOSING BREAST LESIONS UTILIZING THE CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY KEEPING HISTOPATHOLOGY AS A GOLD STANDARD. Journal of Medical Sciences (Peshawar), 30(4), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.52764/jms.22.30.4.8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free