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. Identifier: NCT00072501.

Download full-text


Available from: Richard G Barr, Jul 05, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We previously investigated the application of a novel imaging modality, vibro-acoustography (VA), using an annular confocal transducer (confocal VA) integrated into a clinical prone stereotactic mammography system, to detect various breast abnormalities. To shorten the scanning time and provide improved coverage of the breast, we have evolved our imaging system by implementing VA on a clinical ultrasound scanner equipped with a “quasi-2-D” array transducer. We call this technique “quasi-2-D vibro-acoustography” (Q2-DVA). A clinical ultrasound scanner (GE Vivid 7) was modified to perform both ultrasound imaging and VA using an array transducer consisting of a matrix of 12 rows by 70 columns of ultrasound elements. The newly designed system was used to perform VA on patients with either benign or cancerous lesions. Our results indicate that benign and malignant solid breast lesions were easily detected using our newly modified VA system. It was also possible to detect microcalcifications within the breast. Our results suggest that with further development, Q2-DVA could provide high-resolution diagnostic information in the clinical setting and may be used either as a stand-alone or as a complementary tool in support of other clinical imaging modalities.
    Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.07.005 · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: To compare the agreement of screening breast mammography plus ultrasound and reviewed mammography alone in asymptomatic women. Materials and Methods: All breast imaging data were obtained for women who presented for routine medical checkup at National Cancer Institute (NCI), Thailand from January 2010 to June 2013. A radiologist performed masked interpretations of selected mammographic images retrieved from the computer imaging database. Previous mammography, ultrasound reports and clinical data were blinded before film re-interpretation. Kappa values were calculated to assess the agreement between BIRADS assessment category and BIRADS classification of density obtained from the mammography with ultrasound in imaging database and reviewed mammography alone. Results: Regarding BIRADS assessment category, concordance between the two interpretations were good. Observed agreement was 96.1%. There was moderate agreement in which the Kappa value was 0.58% (95%CI; 0.45, 0.87). The agreement of BI-RADS classification of density was substantial, with a Kappa value of 0.60 (95%CI; 0.54, 0.66). Different results were obtained when a subgroup of patients aged ≥60 years were analyzed. In women in this group, observed agreement was 97.6%. There was also substantial agreement in which the Kappa value was 0.74% (95%CI; 0.49, 0.98). Conclusions: The present study revealed that concordance between mammography plus ultrasound and reviewed mammography alone in asymptomatic women is good. However, there is just moderate agreement which can be enhanced if age- targeted breast imaging is performed. Substantial agreement can be achieved in women aged ≥60. Adjunctive breast ultrasound is less important in women in this group.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 12/2013; 14(12):7731-6. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.12.7731 · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Mammography has been confirmed as the only effective mode to improve the prognosis of patients with breast cancer in Western developed countries, but might not be a good choice in other areas of the world. One of the major challenges in China is to determine an optimal imaging modality for breast cancer screening. This study was designed to clarify the sensitivity of ultrasonography compared with that of mammography in rural China. Methods: We retrospectively studied the sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography based on 306 breast cancer patients detected by the program of "screening for cervical cancer and breast cancer" performed in Chinese rural areas between January 2009 and December 2011, and analyzed the effects of age, breast density and volume on the sensitivity. Results: Stratified analysis showed that the sensitivity of breast ultrasonography was significantly higher than that of mammography in premenopausal patients (81.4% vs. 61.1%, p=0.02), in women ≤ 55 years of age (82.2% vs. 63.4%, p<0.01), in the high breast density group (American College of Radiology [ACR] levels 3-4) (85.9% vs. 60.6%, p<0.01) and in the small breast volume group (≤400 ml) (87.1% vs. 66.7%, p<0.01). Age had a significant effect on sensitivity of mammography (breast density and volume-adjusted odds ratio, 6.39; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-14.4 in age group > 55 compared to age group ≤ 45), but not that of ultrasonography. Neither breast density nor volume had significant effect on sensitivity of mammography or ultrasonography. Conclusions: Ultrasonography is more sensitive than mammography in detecting breast cancer in women under 55 year-old Chinese, especially in those with high-density and relatively small breasts.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 04/2013; 14(4):2277-2282. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.4.2277 · 2.51 Impact Factor