Articles Vol. 65 No. CĐ 8 - Trường ĐH Nguyễn Tất Thành 09/09/2024

42. THE ROLE OF 3D BREAST ULTRASOUND IN DIAGNOSING BREAST CANCER: A CASE REPORT OF BILATERAL BREAST CANCER

Nguyen Thi Bich Lien1,2, Do Thi Tuyet Au1,2, Nguyen Ba Phi Long1,2, Nguyen Duc Toan1,2, Huynh Quang Khanh1,2, Le Tuan Anh1,3
1 Cho Ray Hospital
2 Bệnh viện Chợ Rẫy
3 Bệnh viện Chợ Rẫy
Corresponding author: Bichliendr@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v65iCD8.1498
27 Views
17 Downloads
Keywords
3D breast ultrasound breast cancer
Abstract

Objective: This study evaluates the role of 3D breast ultrasound in diagnosing breast cancer, particularly in a bilateral case, comparing it with traditional diagnostic methods.

Methods: A 55-year-old female patient was incidentally diagnosed with breast cancer during screening due to an elevated CA 15-3 index. Although ultrasound and clinical examination did not detect tumors, mammography and MRI identified BIRADS 4 and 5 lesions. A subsequent 3D ultrasound revealed small lesions that previous methods missed. Core biopsy confirmed ductal carcinoma in situ in the right breast and invasive ductal carcinoma in the left breast.

Results: 3D ultrasound effectively detected small lesions in dense breast tissue that were missed by mammography and traditional ultrasound. The detailed imaging allowed for more accurate diagnosis and guided surgical planning. Postoperative diagnosis confirmed bilateral invasive ductal carcinoma.

Conclusion: 3D ultrasound offers significant advantages in breast cancer diagnosis, particularly for patients with dense breast tissue. Its ability to provide detailed imaging helps detect small, non-palpable lesions, enhancing diagnostic and treatment outcomes.

References
[1]
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al (2021). Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin, 71:209–249. Google Scholar
[2]
Hofvind S, Ursin G, Tretli S, et al (2013). Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer, 119(17):3106-3112. Google Scholar
[3]
McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006). Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Google Scholar
[4]
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 15(6):1159-1169. Google Scholar
[5]
PMA P110006: FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data Google Scholar
[6]
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002). Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology, 225:165-75 Google Scholar
[7]
Schmachtenberg C, Fischer T, Hamm B, et al (2017). Diagnostic Performance of Automated Breast Volume Scanning (ABVS) Compared to Handheld Ultrasonography With Breast MRI as the Gold Standard. Acad Radiol,24(8):954-961. Google Scholar
[8]
Choi WJ, Cha JH, Kim HH, et al (2014). Comparison of automated breast volume scanning and hand- held ultrasound in the detection of Google Scholar
[9]
breast cancer: An analysis of 5,566 patient evaluations. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15(21):9101-9105. Google Scholar
[10]
Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, et al (2016). Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):268-278. Google Scholar
[11]
Bùi Thị Như Quỳnh, Võ Xuân Phúc, Nguyễn Thị Thùy Trang (2020). Giá trị của siêu âm nhũ 3D tự động ABVS so với siêu âm nhũ 2D trong Google Scholar
[12]
phát hiện bất thường tuyến vú tại bệnh viện phụ nữ Thành phố Đà Nẵng. Tạp chí y học sinh sản, 3:70-73. Google Scholar