Skip to main content
. 2014 Feb 10;33(2):128–135. doi: 10.14366/usg.13028

Table 3.

Comparisons of ultrasonographic findings in the underestimated and non-underestimated groups

Variable Underestimated (n=21) Non-underestimated (n=48) P-value
Size on ultrasonography (cm) 2.3±1.1 1.6±0.8 0.151
Ultrasonographic findings
Shape 0.210
 Oval 4 (19) 19 (39.6)
 Round 2 (9.5) 2 (4.2)
 Irregular 15 (71.4) 27 (56.3)
Orientation 0.276
 Parallel 11 (52.4) 33 (68.8)
 Non-parallel 10 (47.7) 15 (31.3)
Margin 0.103
 Circumscribed 0 2 (4.2)
 Indistinct 4 (19) 16 (33.3)
 Angular 0 0
 Microlobulated 13 (61.9) 29 (60.4)
 Spiculated 4 (19) 1 (2.1)
Boundary 0.233
 Abrupt 3 (14.3) 14 (29.2)
 Echogenic halo 18 (85.7) 34 (70.8)
Echogenicity 0.365
 Hyperechoic 0 0
 Isoechoic 3 (14.3) 4 (8.3)
 Hypoechoic 16 (76.2) 41 (85.4)
 Mixed echogenicity 2 (9.5) 3 (6.3)
Microcalcification within the mass on ultrasonography 11 (52.4) 28 (58.3) 0.793
BI-RADS category 0.148
 4 12 (57.1) 37 (77.1)
 5 9 (42.9) 11 (22.9)
Abnormal lymph node in the axilla on ultrasonography 5/19 (26.3) 2/41 (4.9) 0.016

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

BI-RADS, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.