Literature DB >> 22723501

Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.

Regina J Hooley1, Kathryn L Greenberg, Rebecca M Stackhouse, Jaime L Geisel, Reni S Butler, Liane E Philpotts.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine performance and utilization of screening breast ultrasonography (US) in women with dense breast tissue who underwent additional screening breast US in the 1st year since implementation of Connecticut Public Act 09-41 requiring radiologists to inform patients with heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts at mammography that they may benefit from such examination.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was waived for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of 935 women with dense breasts at mammography who subsequently underwent handheld screening and whole-breast US from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.
RESULTS: Of 935 women, 614 (65.7%) were at low risk, 149 (15.9%) were at intermediate risk, and 87 (9.3%) were at high risk for breast cancer. Of the screening breast US examinations, in 701 (75.0%), results were classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 1 or 2; in 187 (20.0%), results were classified as BI-RADS category 3; and in 47 (5.0%), results were classified as BI-RADS category 4. Of 63 aspirations or biopsies recommended and performed in 53 patients, in nine, lesions were BI-RADS category 3, and in 54, lesions were BI-RADS category 4. Among 63 biopsies and aspirations, three lesions were malignant (all BI-RADS category 4, diagnosed with biopsy). All three cancers were smaller than 1 cm, were found in postmenopausal patients, and were solid masses. One cancer was found in each risk group. In 44 of 935 (4.7%) patients, examination results were false-positive. Overall positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy or aspirations performed in patients with BI-RADS category 4 masses was 6.5% (three of 46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%, 19%). Overall cancer detection rate was 3.2 cancers per 1000 women screened (three of 935; 95% CI: 0.8 cancers per 1000 women screened, 10 cancers per 1000 women screened).
CONCLUSION: Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US offered to women in the general population with dense breasts can aid detection of small mammographically occult breast cancers (cancer detection rate, 0.8-10 cancers per 1000 women screened), although the overall PPV is low. © RSNA, 2012.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22723501     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120621

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  95 in total

1.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors: automated measurement development for full field digital mammography.

Authors:  E E Fowler; T A Sellers; B Lu; J J Heine
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Growing BI-RADS category 3 lesions on follow-up breast ultrasound: malignancy rates and worrisome features.

Authors:  Su Min Ha; Eun Young Chae; Joo Hee Cha; Hee Jung Shin; Woo Jung Choi; Hak Hee Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 3.039

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.  How does semi-automated computer-derived CT measure of breast density compare with subjective assessments to assess mean glandular breast density, in patients with breast cancer?

Authors:  G J Bansal; S Kotugodella
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review.

Authors:  Meagan Brennan; Brooke Nickel; Shuangqin Huang; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-03-28       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  3D Supine Automated Ultrasound (SAUS, ABUS, ABVS) for Supplemental Screening Women with Dense Breasts.

Authors:  Alexander Mundinger
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2016-04-01

8.  Effect of training on ultrasonography (US) BI-RADS features for radiology residents: a multicenter study comparing performances after training.

Authors:  Jung Hyun Yoon; Hye Sun Lee; You Me Kim; Ji Hyun Youk; Sung Hun Kim; Sun Hye Jeong; Ji Young Hwang; Jin Hee Moon; Young Mi Park; Min Jung Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Applications of Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Arwa A Alzaghal; Pamela J DiPiro
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 5.075

10.  Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.