Literature DB >> 25423143

Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.

Jason M Johnson1, Alisa K Johnson, Ellen S O'Meara, Diana L Miglioretti, Berta M Geller, Elise N Hotaling, Sally D Herschorn.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the cancer detection rate and stage after benign stereotactic or ultrasonography (US)-guided core breast biopsy between patients with short-interval follow-up (SIFU) and those who return to annual screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registry and the BCSC Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active and passive consent processes and a waiver of consent. All procedures were HIPAA compliant. BCSC data for 1994-2010 were used to compare ipsilateral breast cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics for diagnoses within 3 months after SIFU (3-8 months) versus return to annual screening (RTAS) mammography (9-18 months) after receiving a benign pathology result from image-guided breast biopsy.
RESULTS: In total, 17 631 biopsies with benign findings were identified with SIFU or RTAS imaging. In the SIFU group, 27 ipsilateral breast cancers were diagnosed in 10 715 mammographic examinations (2.5 cancers per 1000 examinations) compared with 16 cancers in 6916 mammographic examinations in the RTAS group (2.3 cancers per 1000 examinations) (P = .88). Sixteen cancers after SIFU (59%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%, 78%) were invasive versus 12 after RTAS (75%; 95% CI: 48%, 93%). The invasive cancer rate was 1.5 per 1000 examinations after SIFU (95% CI: 0.9, 2.4) and 1.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 0.9, 3.0) after RTAS (P = .70). Among invasive cancers, 25% were late stage (stage 2B, 3, or 4) in the SIFU group (95% CI: 7%, 52%) versus 27% in the RTAS group (95% CI: 6%, 61%). Positive lymph nodes were found in seven (44%; 95% CI: 20%, 70%) invasive cancers after SIFU and in three (25%; 95% CI: 5%, 57%) invasive cancers after RTAS.
CONCLUSION: Similar rates of cancer detection were found between SIFU and RTAS after benign breast biopsy with no significant differences in stage, tumor size, or nodal status, although the present study was limited by sample size. These findings suggest that patients with benign radiologic-pathologic-concordant percutaneous breast biopsy results could return to annual screening. © RSNA, 2014 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25423143      PMCID: PMC4497520          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140036

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


  33 in total

1.  Effect of advanced imaging technology on how biopsies are done and who does them.

Authors:  Sharon W Kwan; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Robert K Kerlan; Jonathan H Sunshine
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Utility of 6-month follow-up imaging after a concordant benign breast biopsy result.

Authors:  Lonie R Salkowski; Amy M Fowler; Elizabeth S Burnside; Gale A Sisney
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11-15       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Preoperative needle biopsy improves the quality of breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Ted A James; John L Mace; Beth A Virnig; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 4.  Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions.

Authors:  Wendy Bruening; Joann Fontanarosa; Kelley Tipton; Jonathan R Treadwell; Jason Launders; Karen Schoelles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-14       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  US follow-up protocol in concordant benign result after US-guided 14-gauge core needle breast biopsy.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Youk; Inkyung Jung; Eun-Kyung Kim; Min Jung Kim; Eun Ju Son; Hee Jung Moon; Jin Young Kwak
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Berta M Geller; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; R James Brenner; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Psychologic stress, reduced NK cell activity, and cytokine dysregulation in women experiencing diagnostic breast biopsy.

Authors:  Linda Witek-Janusek; Sheryl Gabram; Herbert L Mathews
Journal:  Psychoneuroendocrinology       Date:  2006-11-07       Impact factor: 4.905

8.  Sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: a review of 2,420 cases with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Youk; Eun-Kyung Kim; Min Jung Kim; Ki Keun Oh
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases.

Authors:  Gerd Schueller; Sylvia Jaromi; Lothar Ponhold; Michael Fuchsjaeger; Mazda Memarsadeghi; Margaretha Rudas; Michael Weber; Laura Liberman; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  1 in total

1.  Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Jane Lange; Jeroen J van den Broek; Christoph I Lee; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Dominique Ritley; Karla Kerlikowske; Joshua J Fenton; Joy Melnikow; Harry J de Koning; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.