Literature DB >> 30882843

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

Janie M Lee1, Robert F Arao2,3, Brian L Sprague4, Karla Kerlikowske5,6,7, Constance D Lehman8, Robert A Smith9, Louise M Henderson10, Garth H Rauscher11, Diana L Miglioretti2,12.   

Abstract

Importance: Whole-breast ultrasonography has been advocated to supplement screening mammography to improve outcomes in women with dense breasts. Objective: To determine the performance of screening mammography plus screening ultrasonography compared with screening mammography alone in community practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study. Two Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected data on screening mammography with vs without same-day breast ultrasonography from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2013. The dates of analysis were March 2014 to December 2018. A total of 6081 screening mammography plus same-day screening ultrasonography examinations in 3386 women were propensity score matched 1:5 to 30 062 screening mammograms without screening ultrasonography in 15 176 women from a sample of 113 293 mammograms. Exclusion criteria included a personal history of breast cancer and self-reported breast symptoms. Exposures: Screening mammography with vs without screening ultrasonography. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer detection rate and rates of interval cancer, false-positive biopsy recommendation, short-interval follow-up, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation were estimated and compared using log binomial regression.
Results: Screening mammography with vs without ultrasonography examinations was performed more often in women with dense breasts (74.3% [n = 4317 of 5810] vs 35.9% [n = 39 928 of 111 306] in the overall sample), in women who were younger than 50 years (49.7% [n = 3022 of 6081] vs 31.7% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]), and in women with a family history of breast cancer (42.9% [n = 2595 of 6055] vs 15.0% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]). While 21.4% (n = 1154 of 5392) of screening ultrasonography examinations were performed in women with high or very high (≥2.50%) Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk scores, 53.6% (n = 2889 of 5392) had low or average (<1.67%) risk. Comparing mammography plus ultrasonography with mammography alone, the cancer detection rate was similar at 5.4 vs 5.5 per 1000 screens (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.68), as were interval cancer rates at 1.5 vs 1.9 per 1000 screens (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.33-1.37). The false-positive biopsy rates were significantly higher at 52.0 vs 22.2 per 1000 screens (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.93-2.58), as was short-interval follow-up at 3.9% vs 1.1% (RR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.60-3.70). The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was significantly lower at 9.5% vs 21.4% (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71). Conclusions and Relevance: In a relatively young population of women at low, intermediate, and high breast cancer risk, these results suggest that the benefits of supplemental ultrasonography screening may not outweigh associated harms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30882843      PMCID: PMC6503561          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8372

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  24 in total

Review 1.  Automated 3-D breast ultrasound as a promising adjunctive screening tool for examining dense breast tissue.

Authors:  Marla R Lander; László Tabár
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 0.800

2.  Combined screening with mammography and ultrasound in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Wolfgang Buchberger; Sabine Geiger-Gritsch; Rudolf Knapp; Kurt Gautsch; Willi Oberaigner
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Adjunct Screening With Tomosynthesis or Ultrasound in Women With Mammography-Negative Dense Breasts: Interim Report of a Prospective Comparative Trial.

Authors:  Alberto S Tagliafico; Massimo Calabrese; Giovanna Mariscotti; Manuela Durando; Simona Tosto; Francesco Monetti; Sonia Airaldi; Bianca Bignotti; Jacopo Nori; Antonella Bagni; Alessio Signori; Maria Pia Sormani; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Defining menopausal status in epidemiologic studies: A comparison of multiple approaches and their effects on breast cancer rates.

Authors:  Amanda I Phipps; Laura Ichikawa; Erin J A Bowles; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Recommendations From the ACR.

Authors:  Debra L Monticciolo; Mary S Newell; Linda Moy; Bethany Niell; Barbara Monsees; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Dense Breast Notification Laws: Impact on Downstream Imaging After Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Michal Horný; Alan B Cohen; Richard Duszak; Cindy L Christiansen; Michael Shwartz; James F Burgess
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 3.929

8.  Impact of the New Jersey Breast Density Law on Imaging and Intervention Volumes and Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Linda M Sanders; Alexander B King; Koren S Goodman
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  The Effect of California's Breast Density Notification Legislation on Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Stephanie Lynn Chau; Amy Alabaster; Karin Luikart; Leslie Manace Brenman; Laurel A Habel
Journal:  J Prim Care Community Health       Date:  2016-10-31

10.  Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  16 in total

1.  Typographical Error in Table 3.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

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.  Quality of screening mammography.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Women's Reports of Dense Breast Notification Following Mammography: Findings from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Thomas B Richards; Sabitha Dasari; Susan A Sabatino; Jin Qin; Jacqueline W Miller; Mary C White
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Identifying Effective Supplemental Screening Strategies for Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  The Clinical Utility of a Negative Result at Molecular Breast Imaging: Initial Proof of Concept.

Authors:  Ravi Jain; Deanna R Katz; Amber D Kapoor
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-09-25

7.  Diagnostic performance improvement with combined use of proteomics biomarker assay and breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Su Min Ha; Hong-Kyu Kim; Yumi Kim; Dong-Young Noh; Wonshik Han; Jung Min Chang
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 8.  A literature review on the imaging methods for breast cancer.

Authors:  Reza Gerami; Saeid Sadeghi Joni; Negin Akhondi; Ali Etemadi; Mahnaz Fosouli; Aynaz Foroughi Eghbal; Zobin Souri
Journal:  Int J Physiol Pathophysiol Pharmacol       Date:  2022-06-15

9.  Benefits of Supplemental Ultrasonography With Mammography-Reply.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Robert Smith; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  The concordance in lesion detection and characteristics between the Anatomical Intelligence and conventional breast ultrasound Scan method.

Authors:  Juan Li; Hao Wang; Lu Wang; Ting Wei; Minggang Wu; Tingting Li; Jifen Liao; Bo Tan; Man Lu
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 1.930

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.