Comparison of Cancer Yields and Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography vs. Supplemental Screening Ultrasound in 4394 Women with Average Risk for Breast Cancer

被引:34
作者
Moon, H. J. [1 ]
Jung, I. [2 ]
Park, S. J. [1 ]
Kim, M. J. [1 ]
Youk, J. H. [1 ]
Kim, E. K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Res Inst Radiol Sci, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Dept Biostat, Coll Med, Seoul 120752, South Korea
来源
ULTRASCHALL IN DER MEDIZIN | 2015年 / 36卷 / 03期
关键词
breast; mammography; ultrasound; screening; FOLLOW-UP; DENSE BREASTS; US; SONOGRAPHY; LESIONS; MORTALITY; SURVEILLANCE; MRI; AGE;
D O I
10.1055/s-0034-1366288
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Purpose: The effectiveness of supplemental screening ultrasound (US) was investigated in women >= 40 years at average risk for breast cancer regardless of breast parenchymal density. A total of 4394 women at average risk and having previously undergone screening mammography were classified as the mammography group. Materials and Methods: Of 4394 women, 2005 underwent screening US after a final assessment of category 1 or 2 on screening mammography, and were categorized as the US group. Category 0, 4, and 5 on mammography and 3, 4, and 5 on US were defined as positive. The cancer yields per 1000 women and diagnostic performance of two groups were compared. Results: The total cancer and invasive cancer yields for the mammography group were 3.0 (95 % confidence interval 1.6, 5.1) and 2.0 (95 % CI, 0.9, 3.9) per 1000 women, higher than the US values of 2.0 (0.5, 5.1) and 1.0 (0.1, 3.6), not statistically significant. The specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) for mammography were 88.90 % (87.93, 89.81), 88.85 % (87.88, 89.76), and 2.61 % (1.39, 4.41), significantly higher than the US values of 69.07 % (66.99, 71.09), 69.13 % (67.05, 71.15), and 0.64 % (0.18, 1.64). The short-term follow-up rate of mammography was 5.51 % (4.85, 6.22), significantly lower than the rate of 26.58 (24.66, 28.58) for US. Conclusion: Supplemental screening US in mammographically negative breasts can find additional carcinomas in women at average risk but is not as effective as screening mammography because of the lower cancer yield, invasive cancer yield, specificity, accuracy, PPV and a high short-term follow-up rate.
引用
收藏
页码:255 / 263
页数:9
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [1] Abe O, 2005, LANCET, V366, P2087, DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66544-0
  • [2] American College of Radiology, 2003, BREAST IM REP DAT SY
  • [3] Use of BI-RADS 3-Probably Benign Category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial
    Baum, Janet K.
    Hanna, Lucy G.
    Acharyya, Suddhasatta
    Mahoney, Mary C.
    Conant, Emily F.
    Bassett, Lawrence W.
    Pisano, Etta D.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2011, 260 (01) : 61 - 67
  • [4] Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts
    Berg, WA
    [J]. RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2004, 42 (05) : 845 - +
  • [5] Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer
    Berg, Wendie A.
    Blume, Jeffrey D.
    Cormack, Jean B.
    Mendelson, Ellen B.
    Lehrer, Daniel
    Bohm-Velez, Marcela
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Evans, W. Phil
    Morton, Marilyn J.
    Mahoney, Mary C.
    Larsen, Linda Hovanessian
    Barr, Richard G.
    Farria, Dione M.
    Marques, Helga S.
    Boparai, Karan
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2008, 299 (18): : 2151 - 2163
  • [6] Beyond standard mammographic screening: Mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging
    Berg, Wendie A.
    [J]. RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2007, 45 (05) : 895 - +
  • [7] Detection of Breast Cancer With Addition of Annual Screening Ultrasound or a Single Screening MRI to Mammography in Women With Elevated Breast Cancer Risk
    Berg, Wendie A.
    Zhang, Zheng
    Lehrer, Daniel
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Barr, Richard G.
    Boehm-Velez, Marcela
    Mahoney, Mary C.
    Evans, W. Phil, III
    Larsen, Linda H.
    Morton, Marilyn J.
    Mendelson, Ellen B.
    Farria, Dione M.
    Cormack, Jean B.
    Marques, Helga S.
    Adams, Amanda
    Yeh, Nolin M.
    Gabrielli, Glenna
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (13): : 1394 - 1404
  • [8] Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer
    Berry, DA
    Cronin, KA
    Plevritis, SK
    Fryback, DG
    Clarke, L
    Zelen, M
    Mandelblatt, JS
    Yakovlev, AY
    Habbema, JDF
    Feuer, EJ
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2005, 353 (17) : 1784 - 1792
  • [9] Survival of invasive breast cancer according to the Nottingham Prognostic Index in cases diagnosed in 1990-1999
    Blamey, R. W.
    Ellis, I. O.
    Pinder, S. E.
    Lee, A. H. S.
    Macmillan, R. D.
    Morgan, D. A. L.
    Robertson, J. F. R.
    Mitchell, M. J.
    Ball, G. R.
    Haybittle, J. L.
    Elston, C. W.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2007, 43 (10) : 1548 - 1555
  • [10] Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer
    Boyd, Norman F.
    Guo, Helen
    Martin, Lisa J.
    Sun, Limei
    Stone, Jennifer
    Fishell, Eve
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Hislop, Greg
    Chiarelli, Anna
    Minkin, Salomon
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) : 227 - 236