American Journal of Public Health Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-669X ISSN (Online): 2327-6703 Website: Editor-in-chief: Apply for this position
Open Access
Journal Browser
American Journal of Public Health Research. 2015, 3(5A), 95-98
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-3-5A-20
Open AccessResearch Article

Role of Mammography Combined with Ultrasonography in Evaluation of Breast Lump

Subita Lalchan1, , Madan Thapa2, Prakash Sharma1, Sumiran Shrestha1, Subash K.C.1, Mahesh Pathak1, Merina Gyawali1 and P.K. Tiwari1

1Department of Radiodiagnosis & Imaging, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal

2Department of Radiodiagnosis & Imaging, Gandaki Medical College, Pokhara, Nepal

Pub. Date: October 28, 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Scenario 2015; Millennium Development Goals)

Cite this paper:
Subita Lalchan, Madan Thapa, Prakash Sharma, Sumiran Shrestha, Subash K.C., Mahesh Pathak, Merina Gyawali and P.K. Tiwari. Role of Mammography Combined with Ultrasonography in Evaluation of Breast Lump. American Journal of Public Health Research. 2015; 3(5A):95-98. doi: 10.12691/ajphr-3-5A-20


Breast cancer is one of the major health problems in the world. Specially, in developing countries like ours, it is a major problem as patients present late in hospital. Hence, early diagnosis is important to reduce morbidity and mortality due to breast cancer. Mammography and Ultrasonography are two important imaging techniques to detect breast pathology. This study has been done to evaluate the role of mammography independently and mammography combined with Ultrasonography to diagnose breast lesions. This study was a prospective study conducted in Radiology department of Manipal Teaching Hospital for a period of 18 months. Total of 91 patients of more than 30 years presenting with breast lump were included in study. Mammography was performed in all cases followed by Ultrasonography. Findings were noted according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS). FNAC was done for all lumps with or without USG guidance and correlated with imaging findings. Mean age is our study was 44 +/- 7.6 years. Maximum number of patients presenting with breast lump was in the age group of 41-50 years (52.7 %). Benign lump was seen in 74.7 % of patients and malignant lump was seen in 25.3 % of patients. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography in differentiating benign from malignant lesions were 90.9 % and 92.7 % respectively. Mammogram was inconclusive in 15.4 % of patients of age group less than 50 years. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography combined with USG increased to 95.65 % and 95.58 % respectively. Combined USG and mammography has high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing breast lesions. Hence, these two imaging modalities should be combined for evaluating breast pathology, especially in younger patients with dense breast.

Breast lump Mammography Ultrasonography

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


Figure of 1


[1]  Pradhananga KK, Baral M, Shrestha BM, Multi-institution hospital-based cancer incidence data for Nepal: an initial report, Asian Pac J cancer Prev, 2009, 10:259-62.
[2]  Singh YP, Sayami P, Managament of breast cancer in Nepal, J Nepal Med Assoc, 2009, 48:252-7.
[3]  Morris KT, Vetto JT, Petty JK, Lum SS, Schmidt WA, Toth-Fejel S, et al. A new score for the evaluation of palpable breast masses in women under age 40. Am J Surg 2002; 184:346-7.
[4]  Berg WA, Gutierrez L, Aiver MSN, Carter WB, Bhargavan W, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB. Diagnostic Accuracy of mammography, Clinical Examination, US, and MR Imaging in Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer1. Radiology, 2004, 233:830-849.
[5]  Donegan WL. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327:937-942.
[6]  Duijm LE, Guit GL, Zaat JO, Koomen AR, Willebrand D. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer. Br J Cancer. 1997; 76(3):377-81.
[7]  Eltahir A, Jibril JA, Squair J, Heys SD, Ah-See AK, Needham G, et al, The accuracy of "one-stop" diagnosis for 1,110 patients presenting to a symptomatic breast clinic, J R Coll Surg Edinb, 1999 Aug, 44(4):226-30.
[8]  Flobbe K, van der Linden ES, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM, Diagnostic value of radiological breast imaging in a non screening population, Int J Cancer, 2001 May 15;92(4):616-8.
[9]  Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. “Breast Biopsy Avoidance: The Value of Normal Mammograms and Normal Sonograms in the Setting of a Palpable Lump. Radiology. 2001; 2(1): 186-191.
[10]  Weinstein SP, Conant EF, Orel ER, Zucker- man JA, Czerniecki B and Lawton TJ. “Retrospective Review of palpable breast lesions after Negative Mammography and Ultrasonography,’’ Journal of Women’s Imaging. 2000;2; 15-18.
[11]  Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, et al, Diagnosis of breast cancer. Contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography, Radiology 1999; 213:413-22.
[12]  Shetty MK, Shah YP, Sharman RS. Prospective evaluation of the value of combined mammographic and Sonographic assessment in patients with palpable abnormalities, J Ultrasound Med 200; 22(3):263-268.
[13]  Soo MS, Rosen El, Baker JA, Vo TT, Boyd BA, Negative predictive value of Sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177:1167-1170.
[14]  Moy L, Slantez PJ, Moore R, et al, Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality, Radiology. 2002; 225:176-181.