Accuracy of Mammography and Ultrasonography in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions Based on Histopathology at MRCCC Siloam Semanggi Hospital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19166/med.v15i2.10725Keywords:
Mammography, Ultrasonography, Breast cancer, Diagnostic accuracy, ROC curve, HistopathologyAbstract
Background:
Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women. Early detection improves survival. Mammography is the gold standard for women over 40, while ultrasonography is commonly used in younger women with dense breasts. To compare the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions using histopathology as the Gold standard.
Methods:
This cross-sectional analytic study included 91 patients who underwent mammography, ultrasonography, and histopathological confirmation at MRCCC Siloam Semanggi Hospital. Diagnostic parameters including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Statistical analysis used McNemar’s test and ROC curve analysis based on Hanley & McNeil’s method, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
Result:
Ultrasonography demonstrated higher sensitivity (98.4%) and NPV (92.3%) than mammography (96.7% and 88.9%), indicating better ability to rule out malignancy. Mammography showed higher specificity (53.3% vs. 40.0%) and PPV (80.8% vs. 76.9%), reflecting better performance in identifying benign lesions. Overall accuracy was slightly higher for mammography (82.4%) compared to USG (79.1%). The AUC for mammography was 0.750 (95% CI: 0.630–0.870), while USG had an AUC of 0.692 (95% CI: 0.565–0.819). Overlapping confidence intervals indicated no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two modalities (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
Mammography and ultrasonography both demonstrated high diagnostic performance with complementary strengths. Mammography provided higher specificity and PPV, while USG offered superior sensitivity and NPV. Given the small difference in accuracy and overlapping AUC confidence intervals, no significant difference was found between the two modalities. Combined use of mammography and USG may improve diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice.
References
1. Ng B, Puspitaningtyas H, Wiranata JA, et al. Breast cancer incidence in Yogyakarta, Indonesia from 2008–2019: A cross-sectional study using trend analysis and geographical information system. PLoS One; 18. Epub ahead of print July 1, 2023. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288073.
2. Łukasiewicz S, Czeczelewski M, Forma A, et al. Breast cancer—epidemiology, risk factors, classification, prognostic markers, and current treatment strategies—An updated review. Cancers; 13. Epub ahead of print September 1, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13174287.
3. Smolarz B, Zadrożna Nowak A, Romanowicz H. Breast Cancer—Epidemiology, Classification, Pathogenesis and Treatment (Review of Literature). Cancers; 14. Epub ahead of print May 1, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14102569.
4. Obeagu EI, Obeagu GU. Breast cancer: A review of risk factors and diagnosis. Medicine (United States) 2024; 103: E36905.
5. Ginsburg O, Yip CH, Brooks A, et al. Breast Cancer Early Detection: A Phased Approach to Implementation. Cancer 2020; 126: 2379–2393.
6. Alotaibi BS, Alghamdi R, Aljaman S, et al. The Accuracy of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Tools. Cureus. Epub ahead of print January 7, 2024. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51776.
7. Tari DU, Pinto F. Mammography in Breast Disease Screening and Diagnosis. Journal of Personalized Medicine; 13. Epub ahead of print February 1, 2023. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13020228.
8. Chen HL, Zhou JQ, Chen Q, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer. Medicine (United States) 2021; 100: E26531.
9. Wang Y, Li Y, Song Y, et al. Comparison of ultrasound and mammography for early diagnosis of breast cancer among Chinese women with suspected breast lesions: A prospective trial. Thorac Cancer 2022; 13: 3145–3151.
10. Nasional P, Kanker P. KEMENTERIAN KESEHATAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA.
11. Tadesse GF, Tegaw EM, Abdisa EK. Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Ultrasound 2023; 26: 355–367.
12. Pereira R de O, da Luz LA, Chagas DC, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions. Clinics 2020; 75: 1–4.
13. Laçi I, Bërdica L, Nina H, et al. The diagnostic value of ultrasound and mammography in detection of breast cancer in Albania. Int J Publ Health Sci 2023; 12: 427–436.
14. Hossain MS, Ferdous S, Karim-Kos HE. Breast cancer in South Asia: A Bangladeshi perspective. Cancer Epidemiology 2014; 38: 465–470.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Randi Eben Haezer, Nungky Kusumaningtyas, Mirna Muis, Denni Joko Purwanto, Nata Pratama Hardjo Lugito, Nina ISH Supit
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website). The final published PDF should be used and bibliographic details that credit the publication in this journal should be included.
