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. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, University of Washington, Seattle. 4. Office of Health Promotion Research, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington. 5. General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs, San Francisco, California. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Veterans Affairs, San Francisco, California. 7. University of California, San Francisco. 8. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 9. Cancer Control Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. 10. Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 11. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago. 12. Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Authors: Stephanie Lynn Chau; Amy Alabaster; Karin Luikart; Leslie Manace Brenman; Laurel A Habel Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2016-10-31
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
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
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
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