Literature DB >> 24764212

Comparison of Cancer Yields and Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography vs. Supplemental Screening Ultrasound in 4394 Women with Average Risk for Breast Cancer.

H J Moon1, I Jung2, S J Park1, M J Kim1, J H Youk1, E K Kim1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of supplemental screening ultrasound (US) was investigated in women ≥ 40 years at average risk for breast cancer regardless of breast parenchymal density. A total of 4394 women at average risk and having previously undergone screening mammography were classified as the mammography group.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 4394 women, 2005 underwent screening US after a final assessment of category 1 or 2 on screening mammography, and were categorized as the US group. Category 0, 4, and 5 on mammography and 3, 4, and 5 on US were defined as positive. The cancer yields per 1000 women and diagnostic performance of two groups were compared.
RESULTS: The total cancer and invasive cancer yields for the mammography group were 3.0 (95 % confidence interval 1.6, 5.1) and 2.0 (95 % CI, 0.9, 3.9) per 1000 women, higher than the US values of 2.0 (0.5, 5.1) and 1.0 (0.1, 3.6), not statistically significant. The specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) for mammography were 88.90 % (87.93, 89.81), 88.85 % (87.88, 89.76), and 2.61 % (1.39, 4.41), significantly higher than the US values of 69.07 % (66.99, 71.09), 69.13 % (67.05, 71.15), and 0.64 % (0.18, 1.64). The short-term follow-up rate of mammography was 5.51 % (4.85, 6.22), significantly lower than the rate of 26.58 (24.66, 28.58) for US.
CONCLUSION: Supplemental screening US in mammographically negative breasts can find additional carcinomas in women at average risk but is not as effective as screening mammography because of the lower cancer yield, invasive cancer yield, specificity, accuracy, PPV and a high short-term follow-up rate. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24764212     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1366288

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultraschall Med        ISSN: 0172-4614            Impact factor:   6.548


  19 in total

Review 1.  BI-RADS 3 on Screening Breast Ultrasound: What Is It and What Is the Appropriate Management?

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2021-08-15

2.  Chronological Trends of Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Clinical, Radiologic, and Pathologic Perspectives.

Authors:  Si Eun Lee; Ha Yan Kim; Jung Hyun Yoon; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jee Ye Kim; Min Jung Kim; Ga Ram Kim; Youngjean Vivian Park; Hee Jung Moon
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Characteristics of breast cancer detected by supplementary screening ultrasonography.

Authors:  Hee Jung Moon; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2015-05-24

4.  Improved visualization of breast cancer features in multifocal carcinoma using phase-contrast and dark-field mammography: an ex vivo study.

Authors:  Susanne Grandl; Kai Scherer; Anikó Sztrókay-Gaul; Lorenz Birnbacher; Konstantin Willer; Michael Chabior; Julia Herzen; Doris Mayr; Sigrid D Auweter; Franz Pfeiffer; Fabian Bamberg; Karin Hellerhoff
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Different Levels of CEA, CA153 and CA125 in Milk and Benign and Malignant Nipple Discharge.

Authors:  Song Zhao; Yu Mei; Jianli Wang; Kai Zhang; Rong Ma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions Detected on Whole-Breast Screening Ultrasound.

Authors:  Sang Yu Nam; Eun Young Ko; Boo-Kyung Han; Jung Hee Shin; Eun Sook Ko; Soo Yeon Hahn
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 3.588

7.  Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of Screening Thyroid Ultrasonography and Imaging Findings of Screening-Detected Thyroid Cancer.

Authors:  Jeongin Yoo; Hye Shin Ahn; Soo Jin Kim; Sung Hee Park; Mirinae Seo; Semin Chong
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 4.679

8.  Application of the downgrade criteria to supplemental screening ultrasound for women with negative mammography but dense breasts.

Authors:  Soo-Yeon Kim; Min Jung Kim; Hee Jung Moon; Jung Hyun Yoon; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Medical auditing of whole-breast screening ultrasonography.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2017-02-16

10.  Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis.

Authors:  Ji-Young Hwang; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Jung Hee Shin; Soo Yeon Hahn; Mee Young Nam
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.759

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.