Literature DB >> 27955877

Incremental Cancer Detection of Locoregional Restaging with Diagnostic Mammography Combined with Whole-Breast and Regional Nodal Ultrasound in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.

Rosalind P Candelaria1, Monica L Huang2, Beatriz E Adrada2, Roland Bassett3, Kelly K Hunt4, Henry M Kuerer4, Benjamin D Smith5, Mariana Chavez-MacGregor6, Wei Tse Yang2.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine if locoregional restaging with diagnostic mammography and ultrasound (US) of the whole breast and regional nodes performed for quality assurance in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were referred to a tertiary care center yields incremental cancer detection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective, single-institution database review was performed on the first 1000 women referred to our center in 2010 with a provisional breast cancer diagnosis. Locoregional restaging consisted of diagnostic full-field digital mammography combined with US of the whole breast and regional nodal basins. Bilateral whole-breast US was performed in women with contralateral mammographic abnormality or had heterogeneously or extremely dense parenchyma. Demographic, clinical, and pathologic factors were analyzed.
RESULTS: Final analyses included 401 women. Of the 401 women, 138 (34%) did not have their outside images available for review upon referral. The median age was 54 years (range 21-92); the median tumor size was 2.9 cm (range 0.6-18.0) for women whose disease was upstaged and 2.2 cm (range 0.4-15.0) for women whose disease was not upstaged. Incremental cancer detection rates were 15.5% (62 of 401) in the ipsilateral breast and 3.9% (6 of 154) in the contralateral breast (P < 0.0001). The total upstage rate was 25% (100 of 401). Surgical management changed from segmentectomy to mastectomy in 12% (50 of 401). The re-excision rate after segmentectomy was 19% (35 of 189).
CONCLUSIONS: Locoregional restaging with diagnostic mammography combined with whole-breast and regional nodal US that is performed for standardization of the imaging workup for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients can reduce underestimation of disease burden and impact therapeutic planning.
Copyright © 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; mammography; nodes; staging; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27955877      PMCID: PMC5237415          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.11.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  35 in total

1.  Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma.

Authors:  R S Butler; L A Venta; E L Wiley; R L Ellis; P J Dempsey; E Rubin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation.

Authors:  W A Berg; P L Gilbreath
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Multicentre study of ultrasonographically guided axillary node biopsy in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  A Y de Kanter; C H van Eijck; A N van Geel; R H Kruijt; S C Henzen; M A Paul; A M Eggermont; T Wiggers
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery.

Authors:  Laurence E McCahill; Richard M Single; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Heather S Feigelson; Ted A James; Tom Barney; Jessica M Engel; Adedayo A Onitilo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Staging of breast cancer with ultrasound.

Authors:  Wei Tse Yang
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.875

6.  Reduction in the number of sentinel lymph node procedures by preoperative ultrasonography of the axilla in breast cancer.

Authors:  E E Deurloo; P J Tanis; K G A Gilhuijs; S H Muller; R Kröger; J L Peterse; E J Th Rutgers; R Valdés Olmos; L J Schultze Kool
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy.

Authors:  M R Bani; M P Lux; K Heusinger; E Wenkel; A Magener; R Schulz-Wendtland; M W Beckmann; P A Fasching
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-06-09       Impact factor: 4.424

8.  Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status.

Authors:  Richard J Bleicher; Robin M Ciocca; Brian L Egleston; Linda Sesa; Kathryn Evers; Elin R Sigurdson; Monica Morrow
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.

Authors:  E L Thurfjell; K A Lernevall; A A Taube
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Quantitative dual-energy CT techniques in the abdomen.

Authors:  Giuseppe V Toia; Achille Mileto; Carolyn L Wang; Dushyant V Sahani
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-09-01

Review 2.  Imaging modalities in pregnant cancer patients.

Authors:  Vincent Vandecaveye; Frédéric Amant; Frédéric Lecouvet; Kristel Van Calsteren; Raphaëla Carmen Dresen
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.437

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.