Article

Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women With Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer (vol 299, pg 2151, 2008)

American Radiology Services Inc, Johns Hopkins Green Spring, Lutherville, Maryland, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 06/2008; 299(18):2151-63. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography.
To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.
From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants.
Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone.
Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%).
Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

3 Followers
 · 
386 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether having a mammogram on differing manufacturer equipment will affect a woman's breast density (BD) measurement. The data set comprised of 40 cases, each containing a combined image of the left craniocaudal (LCC) and left mediolateral oblique (LMLO). These images were obtained from 20 women age between 42–89 years. The images were acquired on two imaging systems (GE and Hologic) one year apart. Volumetric BD was assessed by using Volpara Density Grade (VDG) and average BD% (AvBD%). Twenty American Board of Radiology (ABR) examiners assessed the same images using the BIRADS BD scale 1-4. Statistical comparisons were performed on the means using Mann-Whitney, on correlation using Spearman's rank coefficient of correlation and agreement using Cohen's Kappa. The absolute median BIRADS difference between GE and Hologic was 0.225 (2.00 versus 2.00; p<0.043). The VDG measures for GE was not statistically different to Hologic (2.00 versus 2.00; p<0.877), likewise the median AvBD% for the GE and Hologic systems showed no difference (6.51 versus 6.79; p<0.935). BIRADS for GE and Hologic systems showed strong positive correlation (ρ=0.904; p<0.001), while the VDG (ρ=0.978; p<0.001) and AvBD% (ρ=0.973; p<0.001) showed very strong positive correlations. There was a substantial agreement between GE and Hologic systems for BIRADS density shown with Cohen's Kappa (κ=0.692; p<0.001), however the systems demonstrated an almost perfect agreement for VDG (κ=0.933; p<0.001).
    SPIE Medical Imaging 2015; 03/2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast MRI added to mammography increases screening sensitivity for high-risk women but false-positive (FP) rates are higher and the optimal screening schedule for coordination with mammography is unclear. We compare rates of FP MRI when studies were performed on two different schedules. High-risk women at the University of Vermont who had at least 1 MRI and 1 mammogram performed within one year between 2004-2012 were eligible for inclusion in this study. Screening was considered stacked if both studies were performed within 90 days and alternating if studies were 4-8 months apart. False positive was defined in one of three ways. 137 women had screening which met inclusion criteria and 371 MRIs were reviewed. The FP rates were similar for the two schedules when considering BI-RAD 4, 5, 0 or biopsy as a positive test. FP rates were significantly higher for the stacked schedule (18.2 vs. 10.2%, p = 0.026) when considering BI-RADS 3-4-5-0 as positive test, due to the elevated rate of BI-RADS 3 assessments among stacked exams. False positive rates differ based on the type of exam (baseline or subsequent) and definition of positive but do not differ based on imaging schedule (stacked or alternating); suggesting that women and their providers may choose the imaging schedule they prefer. This is significant as a randomized clinical trial comparing the two schedules is not likely to be performed, given the high cost and large number of women needed for such a study.
    SpringerPlus 02/2015; 2015,4:77. DOI:10.1186/s40064-015-0793-1
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Women who have been treated for breast cancer are at risk for second breast cancers, such as ipsilateral recurrence or contralateral metachronous breast cancer. As the number of breast cancer survivors increases, interest in patient management and surveillance after treatment has also increased. However, post-treatment surveillance programs for patients with breast cancer have not been firmly established. In this review, we focus on the imaging modalities that have been used in post-treatment surveillance for patients with breast cancer, such as mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography, the effectiveness of each modality for detecting recurrence, and how they can be applied to manage patients.
    Korean journal of radiology: official journal of the Korean Radiological Society 03/2015; 16(2):219-228. DOI:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.2.219 · 1.81 Impact Factor

Full-text (4 Sources)

Download
188 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014