Literature DB >> 18477782

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

Wendie A Berg1, Jeffrey D Blume, Jean B Cormack, Ellen B Mendelson, Daniel Lehrer, Marcela Böhm-Vélez, Etta D Pisano, Roberta A Jong, W Phil Evans, Marilyn J Morton, Mary C Mahoney, Linda Hovanessian Larsen, Richard G Barr, Dione M Farria, Helga S Marques, Karan Boparai.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography.
OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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.
RESULTS: 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%).
CONCLUSIONS: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18477782      PMCID: PMC2718688          DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  41 in total

1.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs.

Authors:  W Leisenring; T Alonzo; M S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  M T Mandelson; N Oestreicher; P L Porter; D White; C A Finder; S H Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography.

Authors:  W Buchberger; A Niehoff; P Obrist; P DeKoekkoek-Doll; M Dünser
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.875

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of the Gail model in the Black Women's Health Study.

Authors:  Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Kepher H Makambi; Julie R Palmer; Lynn Rosenberg
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.

Authors:  Michael J Schell; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Bahjat F Qaqish; William E Barlow; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Characterization of cysts using differential correlation coefficient values from two dimensional breast elastography: preliminary study.

Authors:  Rebecca C Booi; Paul L Carson; Matthew O'Donnell; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Anne L Hall; Jonathan M Rubin
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2007-09-27       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Claudine Isaacs; Mitchell D Schnall; Etta D Pisano; Susan M Ascher; Paul T Weatherall; David A Bluemke; Deborah J Bowen; P Kelly Marcom; Deborah K Armstrong; Susan M Domchek; Gail Tomlinson; Steven J Skates; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail; Joseph P Costantino; David Pee; Melissa Bondy; Lisa Newman; Mano Selvan; Garnet L Anderson; Kathleen E Malone; Polly A Marchbanks; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Sandra A Norman; Michael S Simon; Robert Spirtas; Giske Ursin; Leslie Bernstein
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-11-27       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  333 in total

1.  US-guided diffuse optical tomography for breast lesions: the reliability of clinical experience.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim; Ji Youn Kim; Jung Hyun Youn; Myung Hyun Kim; Hye Ryoung Koo; Soo Jin Kim; Yu-Mee Sohn; Hee Jung Moon; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Sonoelastography for 1,786 non-palpable breast masses: diagnostic value in the decision to biopsy.

Authors:  Ann Yi; Nariya Cho; Jung Min Chang; Hye Ryoung Koo; Bo La Yun; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification.

Authors:  D Bernardi; M Pellegrini; S Di Michele; P Tuttobene; C Fantò; M Valentini; M Gentilini; S Ciatto
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-01-07       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  An analysis of the mechanical parameters used for finite element compression of a high-resolution 3D breast phantom.

Authors:  Christina M L Hsu; Mark L Palmeri; W Paul Segars; Alexander I Veress; James T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.

Authors:  Nicholas A Shkumat; Adam Springer; Christopher M Walker; Eric M Rohren; Wei T Yang; Beatriz E Adrada; Elsa Arribas; Selin Carkaci; Hubert H Chuang; Lumarie Santiago; Osama R Mawlawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Classification of breast cancer in ultrasound imaging using a generic deep learning analysis software: a pilot study.

Authors:  Anton S Becker; Michael Mueller; Elina Stoffel; Magda Marcon; Soleen Ghafoor; Andreas Boss
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Mammography Screening - as of 2013.

Authors:  S Heywang-Koebrunner; K Bock; W Heindel; G Hecht; L Regitz-Jedermann; A Hacker; V Kaeaeb-Sanyal
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.915

8.  Direct Regularization From Co-Registered Contrast MRI Improves Image Quality of MRI-Guided Near-Infrared Spectral Tomography of Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Limin Zhang; Shudong Jiang; Yan Zhao; Jinchao Feng; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 10.048

9.  Earlier detection of breast cancer with ultrasound molecular imaging in a transgenic mouse model.

Authors:  Sunitha V Bachawal; Kristin C Jensen; Amelie M Lutz; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Francois Tranquart; Lu Tian; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 10.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.