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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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