Literature DB >> 24959654

Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts.

John R Scheel1, Janie M Lee2, Brian L Sprague3, Christoph I Lee2, Constance D Lehman2.   

Abstract

There are potential benefits and harms of screening ultrasound (US) to supplement mammographic screening of women with dense breast tissue. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of studies assessing the efficacy of screening US to supplement mammography among women with dense breasts. From a total of 189 peer-reviewed publications on the performance of screening US, 12 studies were relevant to our analysis. The reporting of breast cancer risk factors varied across studies; however, the study populations tended to be at greater than average risk for developing breast cancer. Overall, US detected an additional 0.3-7.7 cancers per 1000 examinations (median, 4.2) and was associated with an additional 11.7-106.6 biopsies per 1000 examinations (median, 52.2). Significant improvements in cancer detection in dense breasts have been achieved with the transition from film to digital mammography. Thus adjunctive screening with ultrasound should be considered in the context of current screening mammography performance. Clinicians should discuss breast density as 1 of several important breast cancer risk factors, consider the potential harms of adjunctive screening, and arrive at a shared decision consistent with each woman's preferences and values.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adjunctive screening; breast density legislation; dense breasts; screening breast ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24959654      PMCID: PMC4392403          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  34 in total

1.  Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography.

Authors:  U Fischer; F Baum; S Obenauer; S Luftner-Nagel; D von Heyden; R Vosshenrich; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-19       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Decade of 'normal' mammography reports--the happygram.

Authors:  Nancy M Cappello
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2011-05-14       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 5.  Treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Karen L Maughan; Mark A Lutterbie; Peter S Ham
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 3.292

6.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Vincenzo Giuliano; Concetta Giuliano
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 1.605

8.  Supplementary breast ultrasound screening in Asian women with negative but dense mammograms-a pilot study.

Authors:  Lester C H Leong; Apoorva Gogna; Rita Pant; Fook Cheong Ng; Llewellyn S J Sim
Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singapore       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.473

Review 9.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review.

Authors:  Monika Nothacker; Volker Duda; Markus Hahn; Mathias Warm; Friedrich Degenhardt; Helmut Madjar; Susanne Weinbrenner; Ute-Susann Albert
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-09-20       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 10.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  32 in total

1.  Accuracy and Reliability of Infrared Thermography in Assessment of the Breasts of Women Affected by Cancer.

Authors:  Rinaldo Roberto de Jesus Guirro; Maíta Marade Oliveira Lima Leite Vaz; Lais Mara Siqueira das Neves; Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho; Hélio Humberto Angotti Carrara; Elaine Caldeira de Oliveira Guirro
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Breast Cancer Challenges and Screening in China: Lessons From Current Registry Data and Population Screening Studies.

Authors:  Qing-Kun Song; Xiao-Li Wang; Xin-Na Zhou; Hua-Bing Yang; Yu-Chen Li; Jiang-Ping Wu; Jun Ren; Herbert Kim Lyerly
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-05-22

3.  Evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ grade via triple-modal molecular imaging of B7-H3 expression.

Authors:  Sunitha Bachawal; Gregory R Bean; Gregor Krings; Katheryne E Wilson
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-04-29

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.  Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Robert A Smith; Louise M Henderson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 6.  Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Nehmat Houssami; Janie M Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  Photoacoustic Imaging in Oncology: Translational Preclinical and Early Clinical Experience.

Authors:  Keerthi S Valluru; Katheryne E Wilson; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  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

9.  The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women.

Authors:  Athina Vourtsis; Aspasia Kachulis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  An Investigation into the Consistency in Mammographic Density Identification by Radiologists: Effect of Radiologist Expertise and Mammographic Appearance.

Authors:  Yanpeng Li; Patrick C Brennan; Warwick Lee; Carolyn Nickson; Mariusz W Pietrzyk; Elaine A Ryan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.