Application Of Color Doppler Ultrasonography And Mammography In Diagnosing Breast Diseases

Object: Discuss the value of color doppler ultrasonography (CDFI), mammography and the combination of both methods respectively in diagnosing malignant and benign breast tumor, as well as the Differential diagnosis.Method: Examine 245 breast disease patients with CDFI and mammography, then compare and contrast with the pathologic results after operation surgery,Results: There are 116 cases of malignant breast tumor, and 129 cases of benign breast tumor confirmed by the breast focus pathologic results. In terms of the average age, the malignant group is elder than the benign group, this discrepancy has statistic significance (P<0.0001).Towards mammography method, the sensitivity of malignant breast tumor diagnosis is 87.3%, the specificity of that is 83.7%; the fake positive rate is 16.3%, the fake negative rate is 12.7%; the positive predicted value is 83%, the negative predicted value is 91%. Regarding to the CDFI method, the sensitivity of malignant breast tumor diagnosis is 84.7%, the specificity of that is 85.3%; the fake positive rate is 14.7%, the fake negative rate is 15.3%; the positive predicted value is 83.3%, the negative predicted value is 92.7%. as to the combination of these two methods, the sensitivity of malignant breast tumor diagnosis is 94.9%, the specificity of that is 73.6%; the fake positive rate is 26.4%, the fake negative rate is 5.1%.contrast the grade of the diagnosis using CDFI or mammography respectively in breast disease before operation surgery with the pathologic results after operation surgery, the discrepancy has no statistic significance (P>0.017); the grade of the diagnosis using the combination or these two methods is higher than that of the method solely using mammography, and is also higher than that of the method solely using CDFI, this discrepancy has statistic significance (P<0.017).the detection rate of the malignant group's calcify focus for CDFI and mammography is higher than that of the benign group, the discrepancy has statistic significance (P<0.0001); CDFI has the same detection rate as mammography for the malignant calcified focus, the discrepancy has no statistic significance (P>0.05); mammography's detection rate for the calcified focus is 54.2%, the malignant calcified focus sensitivity for the malignant tumor diagnosis is42.4%, its specificity is 90.7%, the fake positive rate is9.3%, the fake negative rate is50.8%.57.6%. the blood flow in the malignant tumor is more abundant than that of the benign group, and its blood flow grade mainly occupies II -III, while the blood flow grade of the benign group mainly occupies I- II, this discrepancy has statistic significance( P<0.0001). The resistance index of the tumor blood flow of malignant group is higher than that of the benign group, this discrepancy has statistic significance (P=0.002<0.05). the RI diagnosis sensitivity for malignant tumor is 83.3%, specificity is 77.8%; the fake positive rate is 22.2%, the fake negative rate is 16.7%.Conclusion: With respect to the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of breast disease, ultrasonic examination and mammography act as significant roles; for the combination of these two methods, the accuracy of the grade of breast disease before operation surgery is higher than that of the sole mammography method, and it is also higher than that of the sole CDFI method. For the calcified focus detection rate, the malignant group is higher than the benign group. Though malignant detection rate of mammography is low, its the specificity are high. In short, the calcified focus detected by mammography, the grade II -III of breast tumor blood flow grade shown by CDFI and the resistance index of the tumor blood flow are three very important reminders of malignant tumor.