Literature DB >> 23009208

The connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts.

Jean Weigert1, Sarah Steenbergen.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the potential of screening breast ultrasound to improve breast cancer detection in women with mammographically normal, but dense breasts. Six Connecticut radiology practices with 12 total sites participated in a retrospective chart review. The total number of screening mammograms, screening ultrasounds broken down by BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) codes, and the number of positive and negative biopsies were collected from November 2009 through November 2010. Demographic data on the patients with positive biopsies as well as cancer staging were also collected. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value were calculated. A total of 72,030 screening mammograms and 8,647 screening ultrasounds were performed at the research sites during the study period. Relevant research indicates that 41% of the female population has dense breasts. In this study, 12% (8,647/72,030) underwent follow-up breast ultrasound screening. A total of 86% (7,451/8,647) of the ultrasounds were BIRADS 1 or 2, 9% (767/8,647) were BIRADS 3, 5% (429/8,647) were BIRADS 4 or 5. Of those 429 recommended to undergo biopsy 418 were performed and 28 cancers were found. There was one false negative. Screening breast ultrasound in women with mammographically normal, but dense breasts has a Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 6.7% (28/418), Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 99.9% (7,450/7,451), sensitivity of 96.6% (28/29), and a specificity of 94.9% (7,450/7,851). Screening ultrasound had an additional yield of 3.25 per 1,000 cancers in women with dense breasts and normal mammograms and no additional risk factors. As with all screening tests, time, cost, and false positive risk must be considered.
© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23009208     DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  32 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Influences of race and breast density on related cognitive and emotion outcomes before mandated breast density notification.

Authors:  Mark Manning; Terrance L Albrecht; Zeynep Yilmaz-Saab; Julie Shultz; Kristen Purrington
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2016-10-10       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 6.  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

7.  Visibility of mammographically occult breast cancer on diffusion-weighted MRI versus ultrasound.

Authors:  Nita Amornsiripanitch; Habib Rahbar; Averi E Kitsch; Diana L Lam; Brett Weitzel; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2017-10-28       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 8.  Advances in Breast MRI in the Setting of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Nita Amornsiripanitch; Diana L Lam; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 0.800

9.  The Impact of Breast Density Notification Laws on Supplemental Breast Imaging and Breast Biopsy.

Authors:  Loren Saulsberry; Lydia E Pace; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 5.128

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.