Literature DB >> 12767956

The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Karin Flobbe1, Anne Marie Bosch, Alfons G H Kessels, Geerard L Beets, Patricia J Nelemans, Maarten F von Meyenfeldt, Joseph M A van Engelshoven.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of ultrasonography (US) in diagnostic breast imaging is increasing. Restricting US to subgroups of patients who benefit most would result in a more efficient and effective application. This study assessed the diagnostic value of US as an adjunct to mammography (MAM) and a clinical examination (CE) in the diagnosis of breast cancer and the feasibility of selecting subgroups of patients who benefit the most.
METHODS: Between October 1, 1999, and August 1, 2000, all consecutive patients referred for breast imaging underwent additional US after MAM and a CE. Results were scored on a 5-point grading scale of increasing suggestion of malignancy. Pathologic results during 12 months of follow-up were used as the criterion standard. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis assessed the diagnostic value of US in the whole population and in subgroups of patients according to indication for referral and age.
RESULTS: A total of 3835 breasts were examined in 2020 patients, with a 6.3% prevalence of breast cancer. Breast US detected 8 extra malignancies and correctly downgraded 332 cases from a positive to a negative diagnosis (ie, from a suggested malignancy to no malignancy). Receiver-operating characteristic curves showed a significant improvement in diagnostic value by adding US to MAM and a CE (area under the curve for CE + MAM + US vs CE + MAM, 0.99 vs 0.95; P =.002). The diagnostic yield improved significantly in patients referred for palpable breast lumps (P =.004) or referred from the National Breast Cancer Screening Program (P =.05). Less pronounced was the value in patients referred for other symptoms or for follow-up of a prior breast malignancy. When breast imaging of the contralateral breast or of asymptomatic patients referred for reassurance or follow-up of a prior benign lesion was performed, the value of additional US remained undefined because of the few malignancies found.
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic application of breast US improved the overall diagnostic yield. The diagnostic value increased most in patients with palpable breast lumps and in patients referred with abnormal screening MAM results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12767956     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.163.10.1194

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  17 in total

1.  Diagnostic performance of a Near-Infrared Breast Imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone.

Authors:  F Collettini; J C Martin; F Diekmann; E Fallenberg; F Engelken; S Ponder; T J Kroencke; B Hamm; A Poellinger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Inappropriateness of breast imaging: cost analysis.

Authors:  Chiara Adriana Pistolese; Anna Micaela Ciarrapico; Francesca della Gatta; Giovanni Simonetti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  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

4.  Clinical impact of the use of additional ultrasonography in diagnostic breast imaging.

Authors:  Luc D B Vercauteren; Alphons G H Kessels; Trudy van der Weijden; Dick Koster; Johan L Severens; Jos M A van Engelshoven; Karin Flobbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Value of the correct diagnostic pathway through conventional imaging (mammography and ultrasound) in evaluating breast disease.

Authors:  C A Pistolese; T Perretta; E Cossu; F Della Gatta; S Giura; G Simonetti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Novel technology of multimodal ultrasound tomography detects breast lesions.

Authors:  G Zografos; D Koulocheri; P Liakou; M Sofras; S Hadjiagapis; M Orme; V Marmarelis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Differentiation of BIRADS-4 small breast lesions via Multimodal Ultrasound Tomography.

Authors:  G Zografos; P Liakou; D Koulocheri; I Liovarou; M Sofras; S Hadjiagapis; M Orme; V Marmarelis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-09-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results.

Authors:  Hendrik J Teertstra; Claudette E Loo; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Harm van Tinteren; Emiel J T Rutgers; Sara H Muller; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Assessing health care use and cost consequences of a new screening modality: the case of digital mammography.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard; Tracy L Onega; Weiwei Zhu; Diana S M Buist; Paul Fishman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.