Literature DB >> 20853108

Performance of hand-held whole-breast ultrasound based on BI-RADS in women with mammographically negative dense breast.

Ji Hyun Youk1, Eun-Kyung Kim, Min Jung Kim, Jin Young Kwak, Eun Ju Son.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of breast ultrasound based on BI-RADS final assessment categories in women with mammographically negative dense breast.
METHODS: Of 3,820 cases with mammographically negative dense breast and subsequent hand-held bilateral whole-breast ultrasound, a total of 1,507 cases in 1,046 women who had biopsy or at least 2-year follow-up ultrasound constituted the basis of this retrospective study. Cancer rate of each sonographic BI-RADS category was determined and medical audit was performed separately in screening-general, screening-treated, and diagnostic group.
RESULTS: A total of 43 cases (2.9%) were confirmed as malignancy. Cancer rate among BI-RADS categories was significantly different (p < 0.0001). Among three groups, the cancer rate was significantly different (p < 0.0001) and the highest in diagnostic group (15.8%, 22 of 139). Abnormal interpretation rate, PPV of biopsy performed, cancer detection rate, and rate of early stage cancer, and the size of invasive cancer were significantly different among three groups and the highest in diagnostic group. Regarding cancer characteristics, the proportion of advanced cancer was the highest in diagnostic group.
CONCLUSION: Breast ultrasound based on BI-RADS as an adjunctive to negative mammography can be useful for predicting malignancy in women with dense breast.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20853108     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1955-8

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


  28 in total

1.  BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.

Authors:  Andrea S Hong; Eric L Rosen; Mary S Soo; Jay A Baker
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  Image-guided tissue sampling: where radiology meets pathology.

Authors:  Jay Parikh; Ronald Tickman
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  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

5.  Ultrasound for the screening of breast cancer.

Authors:  Therese B Bevers
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 6.  Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists.

Authors:  L Bassett; D P Winchester; R B Caplan; D D Dershaw; K Dowlatshahi; W P Evans; L L Fajardo; P L Fitzgibbons; D E Henson; R V Hutter; M Morrow; J R Paquelet; S E Singletary; J Curry; P Wilcox-Buchalla; M Zinninger
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined.

Authors:  Rita E Sohlich; Edward A Sickles; Elizabeth S Burnside; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Multimodality screening of high-risk women: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Susan P Weinstein; A Russell Localio; Emily F Conant; Mark Rosen; Kathleen M Thomas; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-02       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost.

Authors:  Vittorio Corsetti; Nehmat Houssami; Aurora Ferrari; Marco Ghirardi; Sergio Bellarosa; Osvaldo Angelini; Claudio Bani; Pasquale Sardo; Giuseppe Remida; Enzo Galligioni; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 10.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review.

Authors:  Monika Nothacker; Volker Duda; Markus Hahn; Mathias Warm; Friedrich Degenhardt; Helmut Madjar; Susanne Weinbrenner; Ute-Susann Albert
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-09-20       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Breast imaging: A survey.

Authors:  Subbhuraam Vinitha Sree; Eddie Yin-Kwee Ng; Rajendra U Acharya; Oliver Faust
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-10

Review 3.  BI-RADS 3 on Screening Breast Ultrasound: What Is It and What Is the Appropriate Management?

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2021-08-15

4.  Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Matejka Rebolj; Valentina Assi; Adam Brentnall; Dharmishta Parmar; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Detection Globally: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rupali Sood; Anne F Rositch; Delaram Shakoor; Emily Ambinder; Kara-Lee Pool; Erica Pollack; Daniel J Mollura; Lisa A Mullen; Susan C Harvey
Journal:  J Glob Oncol       Date:  2019-08

6.  Clinicopathological features of breast cancer without mammographic findings suggesting malignancy.

Authors:  Mei Nakamura; Yumiko Ishizuka; Yoshiya Horimoto; Akihiko Shiraishi; Atsushi Arakawa; Naotake Yanagisawa; Kotaro Iijima; Mitsue Saito
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 4.380

7.  Dual Energy Method for Breast Imaging: A Simulation Study.

Authors:  V Koukou; N Martini; C Michail; P Sotiropoulou; C Fountzoula; N Kalyvas; I Kandarakis; G Nikiforidis; G Fountos
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2015-07-13       Impact factor: 2.238

8.  Utility of supplemental screening with breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with dense breast tissue who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Geetika A Klevos; Fernando Collado-Mesa; Jose M Net; Monica M Yepes
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

9.  Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lei Yang; Shengfeng Wang; Liwen Zhang; Chao Sheng; Fengju Song; Ping Wang; Yubei Huang
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Interpretation of breast cancer screening guideline for Chinese women.

Authors:  Yubei Huang; Zhongsheng Tong; Kexin Chen; Ying Wang; Peifang Liu; Lin Gu; Juntian Liu; Jinpu Yu; Fengju Song; Wenhua Zhao; Yehui Shi; Hui Li; Huaiyuan Xiao; Xishan Hao
Journal:  Cancer Biol Med       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.248

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.