Wendie A Berg1, Andriy I Bandos2, Ellen B Mendelson2, Daniel Lehrer2, Roberta A Jong2, Etta D Pisano2. 1. Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC (WAB) and Department of Biostatistics (AIB), University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL (EBM); CERIM, Buenos Aires, Argentina (DL); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (RAJ); Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC (EDP). wendieberg@gmail.com. 2. Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC (WAB) and Department of Biostatistics (AIB), University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL (EBM); CERIM, Buenos Aires, Argentina (DL); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (RAJ); Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC (EDP).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for breast cancer. METHODS: Two thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: One hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.
BACKGROUND: Mammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for breast cancer. METHODS: Two thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: One hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.
Authors: L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kellie L Mathis; Tanya L Hoskin; Judy C Boughey; Brian S Crownhart; Kathy R Brandt; Celine M Vachon; Clive S Grant; Amy C Degnim Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee; Vilert A Loving; Michael S Portillo; Sue Peacock; Wendy B DeMartini Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alycen Wiacek; Ole Marius Hoel Rindal; Eniola Falomo; Kelly Myers; Kelly Fabrega-Foster; Susan Harvey; Muyinatu A Lediju Bell Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Rakesh Bam; Patrick S Lown; Lawrence A Stern; Karina Sharma; Katheryne E Wilson; Gregory R Bean; Amelie M Lutz; Ramasamy Paulmurugan; Benjamin J Hackel; Jeremy Dahl; Lotfi Abou-Elkacem Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Filip Šroubek; Michal Bartoš; Jan Schier; Zuzana Bílková; Barbara Zitová; Jan Vydra; Iva Macová; Jan Daneš; Lukáš Lambert Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 2.924