Literature DB >> 11519860

The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultasonography.

I Saarenmaa1, T Salminen, U Geiger, P Heikkinen, S Hyvärinen, J Isola, V Kataja, M L Kokko, R Kokko, E Kumpulainen, A Kärkkäinen, J Pakkanen, P Peltonen, A Piironen, A Salo, M L Talviala, M Haka.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We studied which, age of the patient or density of the breast accounts for the sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography (US). Furthermore we studied whether the overall impression on the density of the breast or the density in tumour area accounts for the sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material consisted of 572 consecutive histologically and 5 cytologically verified breast cancer cases. Mammography and US examinations were performed immediately before breast cancer operations and information on the findings were received from the original patient files and classified as malignant or benign. The density of breast parenchyma to fatty, mixed or dense in total breast and separately in tumour area was defined by a radiologist group from the original mammograms by comparing to model mammograms. The sensitivity (Se) of mammography and US was compared in 3 age groups (26-49, 50-59 and 60-92) and in the different density classes.
RESULTS: Sensitivity of mammography increased by age (density-adjusted OR = 0.2, 95%, CI 0.1-0.5) in age group 26-49 compared to age group 60-92) and with fattiness of the breast (age-adjusted OR= 0.4, 95%, CI 0.1-1.0 for dense breast parenchyma in tumour area compared to fatty breast). Sensitivity of US was inversely related to age (density-adjusted OR = 2.3, 95%, CI 1.0-5.2 in age group 26-49 compared to age group 60-92) and directly related with fattiness of breast (age-adjusted OR = 0.5, 95%, CI 0.2-0.9 by dense breast parenchyma in tumour area compared to fatty breast). Density in the tumour area compared to total breast density was related only mariginally better sensitivity both of mammography (0.4 vs. 0.6) and of US (0.5 vs. 0.6).
CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of both mammography and sensitivity of US are independently related both to the age of the patient and to the density of the breast. The effect of age is inverse and that of density parallel between mammography and US on sensitivity. The effect of overall breast density was close to the effect of density at the site of the tumour on the sensitivity of both mammography and US.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11519860     DOI: 10.1023/a:1010627527026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  23 in total

1.  Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification.

Authors:  M Costantini; P Belli; C Ierardi; G Franceschini; G La Torre; L Bonomo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Breast elastography: A literature review.

Authors:  A Goddi; M Bonardi; S Alessi
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2012-06-30

3.  Correlation of Strain Elastography with Conventional Sonography and FNAC/Biopsy.

Authors:  Ramona Menezes; Sanjay Sardessai; Renny Furtado; Mahesh Sardessai
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-07-01

4.  Thermal distribution analysis of three-dimensional tumor-embedded breast models with different breast density compositions.

Authors:  Asnida Abd Wahab; Maheza Irna Mohamad Salim; Mohamad Asmidzam Ahamat; Noraida Abd Manaf; Jasmy Yunus; Khin Wee Lai
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 5.  Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.

Authors:  Rongrong Guo; Guolan Lu; Binjie Qin; Baowei Fei
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Quantification of breast stiffness using MR elastography at 3 Tesla with a soft sternal driver: A reproducibility study.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Hawley; Prateek Kalra; Xiaokui Mo; Brian Raterman; Lisa D Yee; Arunark Kolipaka
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Three-dimensional Ultrasound Elasticity Imaging on an Automated Breast Volume Scanning System.

Authors:  Yuqi Wang; Haidy G Nasief; Sarah Kohn; Andy Milkowski; Tom Clary; Stephen Barnes; Paul E Barbone; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 1.578

8.  Is the "blooming sign" a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography?

Authors:  D R Fischer; P Baltzer; A Malich; S Wurdinger; M G Freesmeyer; C Marx; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Large-Strain 3-D in Vivo Breast Ultrasound Strain Elastography Using a Multi-compression Strategy and a Whole-Breast Scanning System.

Authors:  Yuqi Wang; Matthew Bayer; Jingfeng Jiang; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-09-21       Impact factor: 2.998

10.  Imaging features of sporadic breast cancer in women under 40 years old: 97 cases.

Authors:  Bénédicte Bullier; Gaétan MacGrogan; Hervé Bonnefoi; Gabrielle Hurtevent-Labrot; Edouard Lhomme; Véronique Brouste; Martine Boisserie-Lacroix
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.