Literature DB >> 21211962

Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up.

Vittorio Corsetti1, Nehmat Houssami, Marco Ghirardi, Aurora Ferrari, Michela Speziani, Sergio Bellarosa, Giuseppe Remida, Cristina Gasparotti, Enzo Galligioni, Stefano Ciatto.   

Abstract

Surveillance of interval cancers (IC) provides a measure of breast screening efficacy. Increased breast density is a predictor of breast cancer risk and of the risk of IC in screening. Improving screening sensitivity in women with dense breasts, through adjunct ultrasound (US), may potentially reduce IC; however this has not been proven. We report on first-year IC in a retrospective cohort of 8865 women who had 19,728 screening examinations (2001-2006): women with non-dense (D1-D2) breasts received mammography (M) screening, and women with dense (D3-D4) breasts also received ultrasound. Data linkage with both hospital discharge records and cancer registry databases was used to identify IC. Underlying cancer rates (cancers observed within 1-year from screening) were 6.3/1000 screens in the D1-D2 group and 8.3/1000 screens in the D3-D4 group. Cancer detection rate (CDR) was 5.98/1000 in all screening examinations; in D3-D4 breasts ultrasound had an additional CDR of 4.4/1000 screens. There were 21 first-year IC, an overall interval cancer rate (ICR) of 1.07/1000 negative screens: 0.95/1000 in women < 50 years and 1.16/1000 screens in women ≥ 50 years. ICR by breast density were 1.0/1000 negative screens in D1-D2, and 1.1/1000 negative screens in D3-D4. Interval cancers were early stage (in situ or small invasive) cancers, almost all were node-negative. Screening sensitivity was 83.5% for mammography alone in D1-D2 breasts relative to 86.7% for mammography with ultrasound in D3-D4 breasts. Our study shows that including ultrasound as adjunct screening in women with D3-D4 breasts brings the IC rate to similar levels as IC in non-dense breasts--this suggests that additional cancer detection by ultrasound is likely to improve screening benefit in dense breasts, and supports the implementation of a randomised trial of adjunct ultrasound in women with increased breast tissue density.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21211962     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  58 in total

Review 1.  Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density.

Authors:  Valentina Assi; Jane Warwick; Jack Cuzick; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  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

Review 3.  Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  John R Scheel; Janie M Lee; Brian L Sprague; Christoph I Lee; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Katie N Jones; Michael K O'Connor; James P Moriarty; Judy C Boughey; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Robert A Smith; Louise M Henderson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time.

Authors:  D Bernardi; S Ciatto; M Pellegrini; V Anesi; S Burlon; E Cauli; M Depaoli; L Larentis; V Malesani; L Targa; P Baldo; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Interreader scoring variability in an observer study using dual-modality imaging for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Karla J Horsch; Lorenzo L Pesce; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 8.  Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  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

Review 10.  Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries.

Authors:  Meteb Al-Foheidi; Mubarak M Al-Mansour; Ezzeldin M Ibrahim
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.