PURPOSE: To determine whether adding screening ultrasonography to screening mammography can reduce patient recall rates and increase cancer detection rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the results of mammography and ultrasonography breast screenings performed at the Total Health Evaluation Center Tsukuba, Japan, between April 2011 and March 2012. We also reviewed the modalities and results of diagnostic examinations from women with mammographic abnormalities who visited the Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital for further testing. RESULTS: Of 11,753 women screened, cancer was diagnosed in 10 (0.22%) of the 4529 participants who underwent mammography alone, 23 (0.37%) of the 6250 participants who underwent ultrasonography alone, and 5 (0.51%) of the 974 participants who underwent mammography and ultrasonography. The recall rate due to mammographic abnormalities was 4.9% for women screened only with mammography and 2.6% for those screened with both modalities. The cancer detection rate was 0.22% for women screened only with mammography (positive predictive value, 4.5%) and 0.31% for those screened with both modalities (positive predictive value, 12.0%). Of the 211 lesions presenting as mammographic abnormalities investigated further, diagnostic ultrasonography found no abnormalities in 63 (29.9%) and benign findings in 69 (33.7%). The rest 36.4% needed mammography, cytological or histological examinations or follow-up in addition to diagnostic ultrasonography. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to reduce the recall rate in screening mammography by combining mammography and ultrasonography for breast screening.
PURPOSE: To determine whether adding screening ultrasonography to screening mammography can reduce patientrecall rates and increase cancer detection rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the results of mammography and ultrasonography breast screenings performed at the Total Health Evaluation Center Tsukuba, Japan, between April 2011 and March 2012. We also reviewed the modalities and results of diagnostic examinations from women with mammographic abnormalities who visited the Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital for further testing. RESULTS: Of 11,753 women screened, cancer was diagnosed in 10 (0.22%) of the 4529 participants who underwent mammography alone, 23 (0.37%) of the 6250 participants who underwent ultrasonography alone, and 5 (0.51%) of the 974 participants who underwent mammography and ultrasonography. The recall rate due to mammographic abnormalities was 4.9% for women screened only with mammography and 2.6% for those screened with both modalities. The cancer detection rate was 0.22% for women screened only with mammography (positive predictive value, 4.5%) and 0.31% for those screened with both modalities (positive predictive value, 12.0%). Of the 211 lesions presenting as mammographic abnormalities investigated further, diagnostic ultrasonography found no abnormalities in 63 (29.9%) and benign findings in 69 (33.7%). The rest 36.4% needed mammography, cytological or histological examinations or follow-up in addition to diagnostic ultrasonography. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to reduce the recall rate in screening mammography by combining mammography and ultrasonography for breast screening.