الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 32 |  |  |
| | | from | 32 | | |
Abstract
Sonography plays an important role in characterizing breast masses and in guiding needle core biopsies of suspicious sonographic abnormalities. The advantages of sonographically guided procedures over mammographically guided procedures include lack of ionizing radiation, lower cost, and improved patient comfort with supine positioning and lack of breast compression. Other advantages for radiologists experienced in sonographically guided biopsy include the ease and speed of performance of the procedure. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of sonographic guidance for core biopsy of suspicious microcalcifications, with a review of imaging features and histologic results.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of sonographic guidance for biopsy of mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications.
The study was conducted up on 30 patients referred to the radiodiagnosis and interventional radiology department at Alexandria University. Each patient will be subjected to: Full history taking, clinical examination, Laboratory investigation e.g. bleeding time if biopsy will be done and mammography and ultrasound.
Mammography was performed using a film-screen technique (Siemens Mammomat 3000 Nova). Sonograms targeted to the site of microcalcifications were obtained using high-resolution sonography equipment (Simens X 300& Simens X 150) with a commercially available 13.5-MHz 1.5 dimensional linear array probe. For microcalcifications that underwent core biopsy under sonographic guidance, high-resolution sonographic equipment (Simens X 300& Simens X 150) and a 13.5-MHz 1.5 dimensional linear array probe was used with semiautomated gun and a 16-gauge needle. For microcalcifications seen on mammography alone, stereotactic guided wire localization and excisional biopsy was performed.
Of 30 lesions, 26 lesions were identified and underwent sonographically guided biopsy; 4 lesions were not identified sonographically. The diameters of microcalcification clusters in the sonographically identified lesions were larger and contained larger numbers of microcalcification particles compared with clusters not identified sonographically.
Sonographically identified lesions were seen as masses (83%) or distorted parenchyma (3.3%) with strongly echogenic non shadowing foci. All sonographically identified lesions were malignant. Those visible on sonography were more likely to be invasive than those not seen on sonography (92.3% vs 25%, respectively).
We concluded that microcalcifications can be identified on sonography as tiny strongly echogenic foci, especially on hypoechoic background of associated masses, and successfully biopsied under sonographic guidance. Sonographically visible microcalcifications are more freque