Literature DB >> 22513229

Mammographic changes resulting from benign breast surgery impair breast cancer detection at screening mammography.

Vivian van Breest Smallenburg1, Lucien E M Duijm, Adri C Voogd, Frits H Jansen, Marieke W J Louwman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To study possible explanations for lower screening performance after previous benign breast surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 351,009 screening examinations in 85,274 women, obtained between January 1, 1997 and January 1, 2009. The examinations of women with screen detected cancers (SDC) or interval cancers (IC), diagnosed after previous benign breast surgery, were reviewed by two screening radiologists. They determined the presence and degree of post surgical changes, classified breast density and determined whether mammographic interpretation was hampered by tissue characteristics. They also assessed whether the cancer had already been visible at a previous screen.
RESULTS: Screening sensitivity was lower in women with prior benign breast surgery than without (63.5% (115/181) versus 73.5% (1643/2236), p=0.004). A total of 115 SDCs and 66 ICs were diagnosed in breasts after previous benign breast surgery. Post surgical mammographic alterations in the breast segment where cancer was diagnosed were more distinct in ICs than in SDCs (p=0.001). Women with post surgical mammographic changes at the location of the breast cancer had an increased interval cancer risk (OR=2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.05-4.26). Limited mammographic interpretation due to tissue characteristics was mentioned, only in three SDCs and one IC. The proportions of SDCs and ICS that were already visible at a previous screen were comparable for women with and without prior surgery (SDC: 47.5% versus 43.8%, p=0.3, IC: 50.0% versus 48.4%, p=0.8).
CONCLUSION: Previous benign breast surgery decreases screening sensitivity and this is likely due to postoperative mammographic changes.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22513229     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.03.011

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


  6 in total

1.  The potential use of ultra-low radiation dose images in digital mammography--a clinical proof-of-concept study in craniocaudal views.

Authors:  A M J Bluekens; W J H Veldkamp; K H Schuur; N Karssemeijer; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Breast density does not impact the ability of Videssa® Breast to detect breast cancer in women under age 50.

Authors:  David E Reese; Meredith C Henderson; Michael Silver; Rao Mulpuri; Elias Letsios; Quynh Tran; Judith K Wolf
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Breast cancer survivors' risk of interval cancers and false positive results in organized mammography screening.

Authors:  Sisse Helle Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Mette Bach Larsen
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 4.452

4.  Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  V van Breest Smallenburg; J Nederend; A C Voogd; J W W Coebergh; M van Beek; F H Jansen; W J Louwman; L E M Duijm
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Integration of Serum Protein Biomarker and Tumor Associated Autoantibody Expression Data Increases the Ability of a Blood-Based Proteomic Assay to Identify Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Meredith C Henderson; Alan B Hollingsworth; Kelly Gordon; Michael Silver; Rao Mulpuri; Elias Letsios; David E Reese
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Authors:  Ernest Usang Ekpo; Maram Alakhras; Patrick Brennan
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-02-26
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.