Display options
Cite
Khanduri S, Chaudhary M, Sabharwal T, et al. A Low-Cost, Low-Skill Model for Efficient Breast Cancer Screening in Low Resource Rural Settings of a Developing Country. Cureus. 2017;9(8):e1571doi: 10.7759/cureus.1571.
Khanduri, S., Chaudhary, M., Sabharwal, T., Usmani, T., Goyal, A., Khanduri, S., Bhagat, S., Huda, F., Yadav, S., & Katyal, G. (2017). A Low-Cost, Low-Skill Model for Efficient Breast Cancer Screening in Low Resource Rural Settings of a Developing Country. Cureus, 9(8), e1571. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1571
Khanduri, Sachin, et al. "A Low-Cost, Low-Skill Model for Efficient Breast Cancer Screening in Low Resource Rural Settings of a Developing Country." Cureus vol. 9,8 (2017): e1571. doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1571
Khanduri S, Chaudhary M, Sabharwal T, Usmani T, Goyal A, Khanduri S, Bhagat S, Huda F, Yadav S, Katyal G. A Low-Cost, Low-Skill Model for Efficient Breast Cancer Screening in Low Resource Rural Settings of a Developing Country. Cureus. 2017 Aug 16;9(8):e1571. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1571. PMID: 29057183; PMCID: PMC5642813.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Cureus. 2017 Aug 16;9(8):e1571. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1571.

A Low-Cost, Low-Skill Model for Efficient Breast Cancer Screening in Low Resource Rural Settings of a Developing Country.

Cureus

Sachin Khanduri, Mriganki Chaudhary, Tushar Sabharwal, Tarim Usmani, Aakshit Goyal, Shobha Khanduri, Saurav Bhagat, Fahimul Huda, Santosh Yadav, Gaurav Katyal

Affiliations

  1. Radiodiagnosis, Era's Lucknow Medical College and Hospital.
  2. Pathology, Era's Lucknow Medical College and Hospital.

PMID: 29057183 PMCID: PMC5642813 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1571

Abstract

Objective To suggest a low-cost, easily-operable, non-invasive imaging modality for cancer detection in rural settings. Method A total of 212 cases with palpable breast masses aged 18 - 65 years were enrolled and underwent thorough clinical, mammographic, and ultrasonographic (USG) evaluation. Imaging findings were reported using the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) criteria. The findings were confirmed histopathologically. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test. Results The malignancy rate was 35.8% (n = 76). On mammography, lesions size, margins, shape, calcification, and distorted arch/skin thickening were significantly associated with malignancy. On USG, the number of nodules, shape, margins, echotexture, posterior wall echo, through transmission changes, distorted arch/skin thickening, microlobulation, duct extension, and height/width ratio were significantly associated with malignancy. Independently, mammography and USG had a sensitivity of 78.1% and 80.3%, respectively, and a specificity of 83.3% and 89.0%, respectively. Using a positive result of either study as the criteria, the sensitivity was 97.4% and the specificity was 80.1%. Conclusion The combined use of mammography and USG provides high sensitivity and specificity, thus showing that a combination of two can be used as a screening tool for use in low resource rural settings.

Keywords: breast cancer; low resource rural settings; mammography; usg

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Anticancer Res. 2011 Jun;31(6):2327-34 - PubMed
  2. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 Apr;28(4):415-20 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Ultrasound. 2012 Jun;40(5):261-5 - PubMed
  4. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993 Oct;161(4):765-71 - PubMed
  5. Ann Surg. 1999 Nov;230(5):680-5 - PubMed
  6. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2015 Oct-Dec;36(4):207-9 - PubMed
  7. South Asian J Cancer. 2014 Apr;3(2):122-7 - PubMed
  8. Br J Cancer. 2005 Oct 31;93(9):1046-52 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8469-76 - PubMed
  10. J Xray Sci Technol. 2013;21(2):283-92 - PubMed
  11. Breast J. 2012 Mar-Apr;18(2):130-8 - PubMed
  12. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Aug 1;19(15):3524-31 - PubMed
  13. Acta Radiol. 2008 Nov;49(9):975-81 - PubMed
  14. Eur J Med Res. 2015 Apr 21;20:49 - PubMed
  15. Indian J Cancer. 2014 July-September;51(3):277-281 - PubMed
  16. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Dec;179(6):1493-501 - PubMed
  17. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Nov;177(5):1167-70 - PubMed
  18. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2007 Dec;151(2):315-22 - PubMed
  19. World J Surg. 2008 Dec;32(12 ):2593-8 - PubMed
  20. Mol Oncol. 2010 Jun;4(3):192-208 - PubMed
  21. Am Surg. 2009 Oct;75(10):970-5 - PubMed
  22. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Apr;180(4):901-10 - PubMed
  23. J Cancer. 2014 Mar 16;5(4):281-90 - PubMed
  24. Radiology. 1995 Jul;196 (1):123-34 - PubMed
  25. Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 17;112(6):998-1004 - PubMed

Publication Types