Evaluation of the malignancy risk in benign breast disease using screening mammography


  • Bharathidasan Rajamanickam Department of General Surgery, Vinayaka Missions Medical College, Karaikal, Puducherry, India
  • Maheshwari Narayanan Department of Biochemistry, Vinayaka Missions Medical College, Karaikal, Puducherry, India
  • Mithun Govind Dandapani Department of General Surgery, Vinayaka Missions Medical College, Karaikal, Puducherry, India
  • Ambujam . Department of General Surgery, Vinayaka Missions Medical College, Karaikal, Puducherry, India




Breast cancer, Bi-Rads, Lower quadrant, Histopathological


Background: Breast cancer is the most common female cancer worldwide representing nearly 25% of the population. The study was designed to find the correlation between mammographic screening and histopathology in the diagnosis of malignancy among patients breast disease.

Methods: This analytical study was done on 163 patients who came to the General Surgery Out-Patient Department, VMMC, Karaikal were screened. From this, 125 patients who were clinically diagnosed with benign breast disease were further evaluated with mammography. A detailed history, clinical examination, and investigations including mammography, histopathological examination in the operated specimen were done.

Results: In the study 10% lump in the central area, 20% in lower inner quadrant, 12% in lower outer quadrant, 22% in upper inner quadrant and 36% in upper outer quadrant. In the study, all the 100 subjects were diagnosed to have a benign lesion in mammogram, in hpe 87% were diagnosed to have benign lesion and 13% were diagnosed to have malignant lesions.

Conclusions: Even though BI-RADS 2 and 3 mammography showed the majority of benign lesions, there is an increasing trend of malignancy in higher BI-RADS criteria, on further histopathological examination. Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy are very high for mammographic screening.


Author Biography

Bharathidasan Rajamanickam, Department of General Surgery, Vinayaka Missions Medical College, Karaikal, Puducherry, India

assistant professor- regular publisher in medicp acdemay journal


Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium:a national mammography screening and outcomes database. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(4):1001–8.

Bassett LW. Quality determinants of mammography: clinical image evaluation. In: Kopans DB, Mendelson EB, eds. Syllabus:a categorical course in breast imaging. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North Am. 1995: 57- 67.

Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast imaging reporting and data system:Inter- and Intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769–77.

Berg WA, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, Bassett LW, Beam CA, Lewis RS. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology. 2002;224:871–80.

Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–36.

Byrne C, Schairer C, Brinton LA. Effects of mammographic density and benign breast disease on breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12(2):103–10.

Carter CL, Corle DK, Micozzi MS. A prospective study of the development of breast cancer in 16,692 women with benign breast disease. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128(3):467–77.

Cummings SR, Tice JA, Bauer S. Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women:approaches to estimating and reducing risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):384–98.

D'Orsi CJ. American College of Radiology mammography lexicon:an initial attempt to standardize terminology. AJR. 1996;166:779-80.

Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(3):146–51.

Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM. n-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. NEngl J Med. 1998;338:1089-96.

Frederick BW Jr, Samuel WB, Bland KI. History of breast cancer. In: The Breast – Comprehensive management of benign and malignant disease, (3rded.). Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2001: 220.

Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(3):229–37.

Jackson FI. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology. 1989;173:580-1.

Kerlikowske K, Cook AJ, Buist DS. Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(24):3830–7.

Lehman CD, Rutter CM, Eby PR, White E, Buist DS, Taplin SH. Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:511–5.

Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR. 1998;171:35-40.

Ojeda FH, Nguyen J. How to improve your breast cancer program:standardized reporting using the new American College of Radiology Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19(4):266–77.

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

Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast: A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55(11):2698–708.






Original Research Articles