PURPOSE: Mammography has been established as the primary imaging screening method for breast cancer; however, the sensitivity of mammography is limited, especially in women with dense breast tissue. Given the limitations of mammography, interest has developed in alternative screening techniques. This interest has led to numerous studies reporting mammographically occult breast cancers detected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound. In addition, digital mammography was shown to be more sensitive than film mammography in selected populations. Our goal was to prospectively compare cancer detection of digital mammography (DM), whole-breast ultrasound (WBUS), and contrast-enhanced MRI in a high-risk screening population previously screened negative by film screen mammogram (FSM). METHODS: During a 2-year period, 609 asymptomatic high-risk women with nonactionable FSM examinations presented for a prospective multimodality screening consisting of DM, WBUS, and MRI. The FSM examinations were reinterpreted by study radiologists. Patients had benign or no suspicious findings on clinical examination. The cancer yield by modality was evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty cancers were diagnosed in 18 patients (nine ductal carcinomas in situ and 11 invasive breast cancers). The overall cancer yield on a per-patient basis was 3.0% (18 of 609 patients). The cancer yield by modality was 1.0% for FSM (six of 597 women), 1.2% for DM (seven of 569 women), 0.53% for WBUS (three of 567 women), and 2.1% for MRI (12 of 571 women). Of the 20 cancers detected, some were only detected on one imaging modality (FSM, n = 1; DM, n = 3; WBUS, n = 1; and MRI, n = 8). CONCLUSION: The addition of MRI to mammography in the high-risk group has the greatest potential to detect additional mammographically occult cancers. The incremental cancer yield of WBUS and DM is much less.
PURPOSE: Mammography has been established as the primary imaging screening method for breast cancer; however, the sensitivity of mammography is limited, especially in women with dense breast tissue. Given the limitations of mammography, interest has developed in alternative screening techniques. This interest has led to numerous studies reporting mammographically occult breast cancers detected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound. In addition, digital mammography was shown to be more sensitive than film mammography in selected populations. Our goal was to prospectively compare cancer detection of digital mammography (DM), whole-breast ultrasound (WBUS), and contrast-enhanced MRI in a high-risk screening population previously screened negative by film screen mammogram (FSM). METHODS: During a 2-year period, 609 asymptomatic high-risk women with nonactionable FSM examinations presented for a prospective multimodality screening consisting of DM, WBUS, and MRI. The FSM examinations were reinterpreted by study radiologists. Patients had benign or no suspicious findings on clinical examination. The cancer yield by modality was evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty cancers were diagnosed in 18 patients (nine ductal carcinomas in situ and 11 invasive breast cancers). The overall cancer yield on a per-patient basis was 3.0% (18 of 609 patients). The cancer yield by modality was 1.0% for FSM (six of 597 women), 1.2% for DM (seven of 569 women), 0.53% for WBUS (three of 567 women), and 2.1% for MRI (12 of 571 women). Of the 20 cancers detected, some were only detected on one imaging modality (FSM, n = 1; DM, n = 3; WBUS, n = 1; and MRI, n = 8). CONCLUSION: The addition of MRI to mammography in the high-risk group has the greatest potential to detect additional mammographically occult cancers. The incremental cancer yield of WBUS and DM is much less.
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Podo; F Sardanelli; R Canese; G D'Agnolo; P G Natali; M Crecco; M L Grandinetti; R Musumeci; G Trecate; S Bergonzi; T De Simone; C Costa; B Pasini; S Manuokian; G B Spatti; D Vergnaghi; S Morassut; M Boiocchi; R Dolcetti; A Viel; C De Giacomi; A Veronesi; F Coran; V Silingardi; D Turchett; L Cortesi; M De Santis; M Federico; R Romagnoli; S Ferrari; G Bevilacqua; C Bartolozzi; M A Caligo; A Cilotti; C Marini; S Cirillo; V Marra; L Martincich; A Contegiacomo; M Pensabene; I Capuano; G B Burgazzi; A Petrillo; L Bonomo; A Carriero; R Mariani-Costantini; P Battista; A Cama; G Palca; C Di Maggio; E D'Andrea; M Bazzocchi; G E Francescutti; C Zuiani; V Londero; I Zunnui; C Gustavino; M G Centurioni; A Iozzelli; P Panizza; A Del Maschio Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-09
Authors: M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rakesh Bam; Patrick S Lown; Lawrence A Stern; Karina Sharma; Katheryne E Wilson; Gregory R Bean; Amelie M Lutz; Ramasamy Paulmurugan; Benjamin J Hackel; Jeremy Dahl; Lotfi Abou-Elkacem Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Susan H Busch; Jessica R Hoag; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Pamela R Soulos; Kelly A Kyanko; Cary P Gross Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 9.308
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