Incidence of mammograms with inconclusive results and their diagnostic utility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24875/RMIMSS.M20000005Keywords:
Breast, Breast Neoplasms, MammographyAbstract
Background: In Mexico, breast cancer represents the leading cause of death due to malignant pathology in women, presenting itself at a younger age. Due to an increase in BI-RADS 0 mammograms, the question arises as to what is the incidence of said result in mammograms performed during 2014 and 2017, determine the factors associated with variations in the BI-RADS determination and validate the diagnostic utility of this scale.
Material and methods: Cross-sectional, comparative, retrospective study. Population of 1358 women eligible 40 to 69 years in 2014 and 1650 women of the same age group in 2017. The means were compared with Pearson’s Chi-square statistical test to compare proportions in order to determine significant differences in the incidence of inconclusive results of mammography and thus estimate the usefulness of mammography as a screening test.
Results: In 2014, 9.50% of the patients studied obtained a BI-RADS 0 result, compared to 2017, in which it was 35.4% with a Chi-square value of 278.31, which shows a higher probability 99% that there is an association between the year in which the study was conducted and the number of BI-RADS 0 reported.
Conclusions: The mammograms with inconclusive results from the years 2014 and 2017 showed a significant difference, for which it was determined that mammography is a highly useful diagnostic method for mass detection.
Downloads
References
Cárdenas J. Consenso mexicano sobre diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer mamario. Elsevier; 2017. p. 5-27. Disponible en: http://juntoscontraelcancer.mx/jcc/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/06/152-GPC- Interinstitucional-CancerMama-Consenso-MexicanosobreDiagnosticoTratamiento 2017.pdf.
Barragán J, Becerra G, González N, Mainero F, Mijares A, Patlán R, et al. Diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer de mama en segundo y tercer nivel de atención. México: CENETEC: 2009. Disponible en: http://www.cenetec.salud.gob.mx/descargas/gpc/CatalogoMaestro/232_ IMSS_09_Ca_Mama_2oN/EyR_IMSS_232_09.pdf.
ACV Ediciones. Hablemos de El cáncer de mama con Roche. Madrid, España: ACV Ediciones; 2011. Disponible en: http://fecma.vinagrero.es/documentos/hablemos_ de_cancer_mama.pdf.
Vich P, Brusint B, Álvarez C, Cuadrado C, Díaz N. Actualización del cáncer de mama en atención primaria. Medicina de Familia. SEMERGEN. 2014;6:326-33. Disponible en: http://www.elsevier.es/index.php?p=revista&pRevista=pdfsimple&pii=S113835931400104X&r=40.
Organización Mundial de la Salud. Cáncer de mama, prevención y control. Ginebra, Suiza: OMS; 2018. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/topics/cancer/breastcancer/es/.
Castellanos SH, González-Balboa P, Tovar-Calderón IL, Olarte-Casas MA, Vázquez-Lamadrid J. Cáncer de mama. Anales de Radiología México. 2009;1:117-26. Disponible en: https://docplayer.es/16333324-Metodos-de-imagen-utiles-para-la-deteccion-diagnostico-estadiaje-y-evaluacion-de-la-respuesta-al-tratamiento-del-cancer.html.
Cárdenas-Sánchez J. Consenso mexicano sobre diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer mamario. México: Masson Doyma México; 2013. Disponible en: http://www.consensocancermamario.com/documentos/FOLLETO_CONSENSO_DE_CANCER_DE_MAMA_5aRev2013.PDF.
Bleyer A, Welch G. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1998-2005. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1206809.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Estadísticas a propósito del día mundial de la lucha contra el cáncer de mama (19 de octubre). Ciudad de México: INEGI; 2015. Disponible en: http://www.inegi.org.mx/saladeprensa/aproposito/2015/mama0.pdf.
Castrezana-Campos MR. Geografía del cáncer de mama en México. Invest Geog. 2017;(93). Disponible en: http:// www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0188-46112017000 200010&script=sci_abstract.
SINAIS. Programa de acción específico para prevención y control del cáncer de la mujer. Ciudad de México: Sistema Nacional de Información de Salud; 2014. Disponible en: http://cnegsr.salud.gob.mx/contenidos/descargas/ cama/PrevencionyControldelCancerdelaMujer_2013_2018.pdf.
CENETEC. Prevención, tamizaje y referencia oportuna de casos sospechosos de cáncer de mama en el primer nivel de atención. Ciudad de México: CENETEC; 2017. Disponible en: http://www.cenetec-difusion.com/CMGPC/S-001-08/RR.pdf.
Eun-Kyung K, Kyung-Hee K. Clinical application of the BIRADS final assesement to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1209- 15. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3259.
Autier P. Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population based study. BMJ. 2017;359:j5224. doi: https://doi. org/10.1136/bmj.j5224.
Seely JM, Alhassan T. Screening for breast cancer in 2018. What should be done today? Curr Oncol. 2018;25(Suppl 1):S115-24. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3747/ co.25.3770.
Nguyen CP. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography in Vietnamese women. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194996. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0194996.
Poveda C. Sistema BIRADS: descifrando el informe mamográfico. Repertorio de Medicina y Cirugía. 2010;19:18-27. Disponible en: https://docplayer.es/ 2001825-Sistema-birads-descifrando-el-informe-mamografico.html.
Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, Ernster VL, Yankaskas BC, Sickles EA, et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology. 2002;222(2):536-42.
Eberl M, Fox C, Edge S, Carter CA, Mahoney MC. BIRADS classification for management of abnormal mammograms. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19(2):161-4.
Welch G, Prorok PC. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1438-47.
Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-041- SSA2-2011, para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer de mama. México: Diario Oficial de la Federación: 2011. Disponible en: http://www.cenetec.salud.gob.mx/descargas/equipoMedico/normas/NOM_041_SSA2_2011.pdf.
Mendoza H. BI-RADS 3. ¿Realmente son hallazgos benignos? Variabilidad interobservador. An Radiol Meex. 2009;3:173-6. Disponible en: http://isradiology.org/gorad/ revistas/rev_mex/anrx092_07.pdf.
Gelareh S, Ruth C, Colleen N. Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: a meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;133(1):23-35. doi: 10.1007/ s10549-011-1857-8.
Gourd E. Mammography deficiencies: the result of poor positioning. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(8):e385.
CENETEC. Guía Tecnológica No. 11: Mastógrafo. Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Salud; 2004. Disponible en: http://www.cenetec.salud.gob.mx/descargas/biomedica/guias_tecnologicas/11gt_mastografo.pdf.
Zhi H, Ou B, Luo BM, Feng X, Wen YL, Yang HY. Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the diagnosis of solid breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(6):807-15.
Olubukola AT, Campbell BC, Irurhe NK, Atalabi OM, Toyobo OO. Breast cancer screening in a resource poor country: ultrasound versus mammography. Ghana Med J. 2017;51(1):6-12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/gmj.v51i1.2.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2025-06-13 (3)
- 2025-06-13 (2)
- 2020-04-13 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain their copyright and grant the Revista Médica del IMSS the right of first publication. Articles are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which allows sharing as long as the author and the original source are properly credited.
