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. Identifier: NCT00072501.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the potential of multiparametric spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging using oxygen saturation, total hemoglobin, and lipid content to differentiate among four different breast histologies (normal, hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and invasive breast carcinoma) in a transgenic mouse model of breast cancer development.
    Theranostics 01/2014; 4(11):1062-71. · 7.81 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.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We report usefulness of ultrasound used as an adjunct diagnostic tool to mammogram in routine annual checkup for women breasts of certain ages and breast mass. The purpose of breast imaging is to detect areas of tissue distortion and breast cancers. A mammogram is the common diagnostic imaging modality used to find breast diseases but sometimes the mammogram might not give the doctor enough information especially in women with dense breasts. As a result, the patient may be asked to undergo ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging as a better mean of judgment to the case. Because ultrasound is widely used, simple and safe to patients we were encouraged to em-phasis on exploring its role adjunct to mammogram. A retrospective observation study was done at the diagnostic radiology department at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) in the period from January 2012 to June 2012; we covered all women with dense breasts in mammography and ultrasound units. The study group was 40 patients. All patients were imaged with both mammo-graphy and ultrasound. The statistical measures of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were cal-culated using the SPSS program. The results we obtained suggest that age and the physical density of breast potentially affect mammogram images of women with 41 years or smaller with sensitiv-ity 66% and specificity 68%. Therefore, we recommend using ultrasound alongside the mammo-gram in women with dense breast for better diagnosis of small cancers that were not identified on mammography or clinical breast examination alone.
    Advances in Breast Cancer Research 01/2014; 3(3):88-95.

Full-text (4 Sources)

Available from
Jun 4, 2014

Similar Publications