Article

Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

American Radiology Services Inc, Johns Hopkins Green Spring, Lutherville, Maryland, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 29.98). 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 Bookmarks
 · 
303 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of this article is to provide clinical guidance on breast cancer screening and prevention in primary care. The discussion highlights the importance of risk assessment, including screening options and risk-reduction strategies, for women at average and high risk. We review recommendations for breast cancer screening, evaluate current evidence on primary prevention, examine current practice patterns, and consider the impact of recent changes within health care.
    Primary care 06/2014; 41(2):283-306. · 0.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mammography is the only method of breast cancer screening that has established evidence of a mortality reduction. However, mammography does not achieve sufficient accuracy in the high-density breasts of patients <50 years of age. In 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force revised its recommendation for breast cancer screening in women aged 40-49 years from Grade B to C because the net benefit was relatively small for this age bracket. The net benefit of screening is the sum of benefits and harm and should always be monitored especially in population screening. A high recall rate, an inefficient number needed to invite for screening to prevent one breast cancer death, a high false-positive rate and unnecessary additional imaging for women aged 40-49 years are great concerns of mammography screening. Overdiagnosis is also a detriment of mammography screening; however, it may have a limited effect on women aged 40-49 years. Establishment of new evidence for breast cancer screening, such as ultrasonography screening, is needed in order to create a more effective screening system.
    Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 05/2014; · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women worldwide. Prediction models stratify a woman's risk for developing cancer and can guide screening recommendations based on the presence of known and quantifiable hormonal, environmental, personal, or genetic risk factors. Mammography remains the mainstay breast cancer screening and detection but magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound have become useful diagnostic adjuncts in select patient populations. The management of breast cancer has seen much refinement with increased specialization and collaboration with multidisciplinary teams that include surgeons, oncologists, radiation oncologists, nurses, geneticist, reconstructive surgeons and patients. Evidence supports a less invasive surgical approach to the staging and management of the axilla in select patients. In the era of patient/tumor specific management, the advent of molecular and genomic profiling is a paradigm shift in the treatment of a biologically heterogenous disease.
    World journal of clinical oncology. 08/2014; 5(3):283-298.

Full-text (4 Sources)

View
103 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014

Similar Publications