Literature DB >> 19890643

Influence of additional breast ultrasound on cancer detection in a cohort study for quality assurance in breast diagnosis--analysis of 102,577 diagnostic procedures.

Fritz K W Schaefer1, A Waldmann, A Katalinic, C Wefelnberg, M Heller, W Jonat, I Schreer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the value of a breast ultrasound (US) examination in addition to mammography in cases of American College of Radiology (ACR) tissue pattern III and IV in symptomatic women and women at risk.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort was initiated between 2001 and 2005 with a total of 59,514 patients and 102,744 mammograms. Documentation was available for 102,557 diagnostic procedures. Breast US was indicated in all women with ACR III and IV in addition to a suspicious clinical examination and in cases of masses and focal asymmetries in mammography.
RESULTS: In total, 62,006 additional USs were performed, in which 116 mammographically and clinically occult breast cancers were diagnosed (detection rate: 1.9/1,000 examinations), while mammography alone (40,551 examinations) revealed 903 cancers (22.3/1,000). Of all 1,019 breast cancer findings, 12.8% were detected because of the combination of mammography and US. In the group with ACR III/IV, 15.9% of cancers were found by supplemental US compared with mammography alone.
CONCLUSION: The addition of US to mammography vs. mammography alone resulted in a significant (P < 0.01) increase in breast cancer detection rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19890643     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1641-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  23 in total

1.  Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography.

Authors:  L Ma; E Fishell; B Wright; W Hanna; S Allan; N F Boyd
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-05-20       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years.

Authors:  M M Roberts; F E Alexander; T J Anderson; U Chetty; P T Donnan; P Forrest; W Hepburn; A Huggins; A E Kirkpatrick; J Lamb
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-02-03       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  O Olsen; P C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-10-20       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  P C Gøtzsche; M Nielsen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

5.  Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?

Authors:  P C Gøtzsche; O Olsen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-01-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup.

Authors:  W Buchberger; P DeKoekkoek-Doll; P Springer; P Obrist; M Dünser
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Mammographically occult breast cancer. A pathologic and radiologic study.

Authors:  R Holland; J H Hendriks; M Mravunac
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1983-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.

Authors:  R E Bird; T W Wallace; B C Yankaskas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  11 in total

1.  Advanced Imaging for Precision Medicine in Breast Cancer: From Morphology to Function.

Authors:  Katja Pinker
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 2.  Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications.

Authors:  Martina Zanotel; Iliana Bednarova; Viviana Londero; Anna Linda; Michele Lorenzon; Rossano Girometti; Chiara Zuiani
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; And Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  [S3 guideline breast cancer: update on early detection, and mammography screening].

Authors:  Ute-Susann Albert; Ingrid Schreer
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Benefits of the quality assured double and arbitration reading of mammograms in the early diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women.

Authors:  Annika Waldmann; Smaragda Kapsimalakou; Alexander Katalinic; Isabell Grande-Nagel; Beate M Stoeckelhuber; Dorothea Fischer; Joerg Barkhausen; Florian M Vogt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Testing a dual-modality system that combines full-field digital mammography and automated breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Christopher L Vaughan; Tania S Douglas; Qonita Said-Hartley; Roland V Baasch; James A Boonzaier; Brian C Goemans; John Harverson; Michael W Mingay; Shuaib Omar; Raphael V Smith; Nielen C Venter; Heidi S Wilson
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 1.605

8.  Orbital metastasis from an occult breast carcinoma (T0, N1, M1).

Authors:  Rita Pinto Proença; Júlia Fernandes; Miguel N Burnier; Rui Proença
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2018-04-11

9.  Stiffness of the surrounding tissue of breast lesions evaluated by ultrasound elastography.

Authors:  JianQiao Zhou; WeiWei Zhan; YiJie Dong; ZhiFang Yang; Chun Zhou
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-04-05       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Preoperative assessment of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography of diagnosed breast cancers after sonographic biopsy: Correlation to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and 5-year postoperative follow-up.

Authors:  Yun-Chung Cheung; Yu-Hsiang Juan; Yung-Feng Lo; Yu-Ching Lin; Chih-Hua Yeh; Shir-Hwa Ueng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.889

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.