Literature DB >> 26757021

Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Joy Melnikow, Joshua J Fenton, Evelyn P Whitlock, Diana L Miglioretti, Meghan S Weyrich, Jamie H Thompson, Kunal Shah.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography has lower sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts, who experience higher breast cancer risk.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of reproducibility of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categorization and test performance and clinical outcomes of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts and negative mammography results. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database from January 2000 to July 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting BI-RADS density reproducibility or supplemental screening results for women with dense breasts. DATA EXTRACTION: Quality assessment and abstraction of 24 studies from 7 countries; 6 studies were good-quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three good-quality studies reported reproducibility of BI-RADS density; 13% to 19% of women were recategorized between "dense" and "nondense" at subsequent screening. Two good-quality studies reported that sensitivity of ultrasonography for women with negative mammography results ranged from 80% to 83%; specificity, from 86% to 94%; and positive predictive value (PPV), from 3% to 8%. The sensitivity of MRI ranged from 75% to 100%; specificity, from 78% to 94%; and PPV, from 3% to 33% (3 studies). Rates of additional cancer detection with ultrasonography were 4.4 per 1000 examinations (89% to 93% invasive); recall rates were 14%. Use of MRI detected 3.5 to 28.6 additional cancer cases per 1000 examinations (34% to 86% invasive); recall rates were 12% to 24%. Rates of cancer detection with DBT increased by 1.4 to 2.5 per 1000 examinations compared with mammography alone (3 studies). Recall rates ranged from 7% to 11%, compared with 7% to 17% with mammography alone. No studies examined breast cancer outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Good-quality evidence was sparse. Studies were small and CIs were wide. Definitions of recall were absent or inconsistent.
CONCLUSION: Density ratings may be recategorized on serial screening mammography. Supplemental screening of women with dense breasts finds additional breast cancer but increases false-positive results. Use of DBT may reduce recall rates. Effects of supplemental screening on breast cancer outcomes remain unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26757021      PMCID: PMC5100826          DOI: 10.7326/M15-1789

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  37 in total

1.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.

Authors:  Steve Si Jia Feng; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.

Authors:  Charlotte C Gard; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Stephen H Taplin; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Usefulness of ultrasounds in the management of breast phyllodes tumors.

Authors:  G Bernardi; G Cavallaro; M Indinnimeo; A Fiore; L Basso; G D'Ermo; G De Toma; A Cavallaro
Journal:  G Chir       Date:  2012-03

4.  Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study.

Authors:  David Gur; Margarita L Zuley; Maria I Anello; Grace Y Rathfon; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Luisa Wallace; Amy Lu; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta A Geller; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Women's responses to information on mammographic breast density.

Authors:  Joan L Bottorff; Pamela A Ratner; Joy L Johnson; T Gregory Hislop; Jane A Buxton; Cornelia Zeisser; Weihong Chen; Birgit Reime
Journal:  Can J Nurs Res       Date:  2007-03

7.  Relationship between mammographic density and breast cancer death in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise A Brinton; Ghada N Farhat; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Catherine Schairer; Stephen H Taplin; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Racial differences in mammographic breast density.

Authors:  Marcela G del Carmen; Kevin S Hughes; Elkan Halpern; Elizabeth Rafferty; Daniel Kopans; Yuri R Parisky; Armando Sardi; Lisa Esserman; Steven Rust; James Michaelson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  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

View more
  87 in total

1.  What Are the Public Health Effects of Dense Breast Notification Laws?

Authors:  Stacey A Fedewa
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review.

Authors:  Meagan Brennan; Brooke Nickel; Shuangqin Huang; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-03-28       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  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

4.  Efficacy of Affibody-Based Ultrasound Molecular Imaging of Vascular B7-H3 for Breast Cancer Detection.

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

5.  Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Dense Breasts Should Be Offered With Simultaneous Collection of Outcomes Data.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Analysis of blood markers for early breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  J Bayo; M A Castaño; F Rivera; F Navarro
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 3.405

7.  Association of State Dense Breast Notification Laws With Supplemental Testing and Cancer Detection After Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Susan H Busch; Jessica R Hoag; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Pamela R Soulos; Kelly A Kyanko; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density.

Authors:  Stefanie Weigel; W Heindel; J Heidrich; H-W Hense; O Heidinger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Review of quantitative multiscale imaging of breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-01-22

10.  A Qualitative Study of Spanish-Speakers' Experience with Dense Breast Notifications in a Massachusetts Safety-Net Hospital.

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Amy Fitzpatrick; Sarah Waugh; Michelle Carrera; Nancy R Kressin; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.