Objectives: The primary objective of the study is to measure the serum ADA levels in benign and malignant breast lumps. The secondary objective is to compare the serum ADA levels in benign and Malignant breast lumps, and to assess the use of serum ADA levels as a potential biochemical indicator for the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Materials and Methods: This is a descriptive observational study which is being conducted at Rajarajeswari Medical College and Hospital for 3 months. The patients presenting with breast lumps were subjected to a clinical examination of both breasts and axillae, which were then confirmed by radiological investigations such as mammograms or sonomammograms for a final diagnosis. Blood samples were drawn for the measurement of serum ADA activity, which was measured at 37°C according to the method of Giusti and Galanti, based on the Berthelot reaction. The statistical analysis was done using descriptive and inferential statistics. Yamane’s formula was used to calculate the sample size of 50 patients. Results: Out of the 50 cases included in this study, 60% of the patients have malignant breast lumps and 40% of the patients have benign breast lumps. Out of the malignant cases (breast imaging-reporting and data system stage 4 and above), 11.1% are found to have abnormally high serum ADA levels (>24 U/L), while 0% of the benign cases have abnormal serum ADA values (<24 U/L). Conclusion: According to the findings in this study, serum ADA values are similar in range for benign and malignant breast lumps. Only 11.1% of the malignant cases show a rise in serum ADA levels, which is not adequate for the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Hence, contrary to previous studies, serum ADA levels are not a specific indicator for the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Limitations in this study may include a small sample size and the inclusion of pre-operative cases. A larger sample size may substantiate the result with respect to the use of serum ADA levels as an indicator of breast carcinoma.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parameswaran et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: