Literature DB >> 31553658

Dense Breast Ultrasound Screening After Digital Mammography Versus After Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Elizabeth H Dibble1, Tisha M Singer1, Nneka Jimoh1, Grayson L Baird1,2, Ana P Lourenco1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to compare the yield of dense breast ultrasound (US) screening after digital mammography (DM) versus after digital breast tomosyn-thesis (DBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS. For this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, we retrospectively searched databases at two tertiary breast imaging centers and an office practice staffed by the same fellowship-trained breast radiologists for screening US examinations from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2016. Prior DM versus DBT and screening US and pathology results were recorded. Mammographically occult cancers detected with US and additional benign lesions requiring biopsy were calculated. Differences between DM and DBT were compared using the two-sample proportions z test. RESULTS. A total of 3183 screening breast US examinations were performed, 1434 (45.1%) after DM and 1668 (52.4%) after DBT. Of the 3183 examinations, 81 (2.5%) had no prior mammogram available. Of the 122 DM and DBT patients for whom biopsy or cyst aspiration was recommended (all BI-RADS assessment category 4 or BI-RADS assessment category 5 studies), 118 (96.7%) had biopsy or cyst aspiration results available. Of the 36 biopsies or aspirations after DM, 6 (16.7%) were malignant and 30 (83.3%) were benign; of the 82 biopsies or aspirations after DBT, 11 (13.4%) were malignant and 71 (86.6%) were benign (p = 0.8583). The additional cancer detection rate by US after DM was 5/1434 or 3.5 per 1000 women screened and after DBT was 5/1668 or 3.0 per 1000 women screened (p = 0.9999). CONCLUSION. No significant difference in additional cancer detection rate was found with screening US after DM versus after DBT.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dense breasts; digital breast tomosynthesis; early detection of cancer; mammography; ultrasound screening

Year:  2019        PMID: 31553658     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20748

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  4 in total

1.  Can Combined Screening of Ultrasound and Elastography Improve Breast Cancer Identification Compared with MRI in Women with Dense Breasts-a Multicenter Prospective Study.

Authors:  Lu-Ying Gao; Yang Gu; Wen Xu; Jia-Wei Tian; Li-Xue Yin; Hai-Tao Ran; Wei-Dong Ren; Yu-Ming Mu; Jie-Ying Zhang; Cai Chang; Jian-Jun Yuan; Chun-Song Kang; You-Bin Deng; Hui Wang; Xiao-Yan Xie; Bao-Ming Luo; Sheng-Lan Guo; Qi Zhou; En-Sheng Xue; Wei-Wei Zhan; Tong Jiao; Qing Zhou; Jie Li; Ping Zhou; Pin-Tong Huang; Hong-Yuan Xue; Chun-Quan Zhang; Man Chen; Xiang-Xiang Jing; Ying Gu; Jian-Feng Guo; Hong-Yu Ding; Jin-Feng Xu; Wu Chen; Li Liu; Yu-Hong Zhang; Hong-Qiao Wang; Zhong-Ping Mu; Jian-Chu Li; Hong-Yan Wang; Yu-Xin Jiang
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 4.207

2.  Optimization of the Radiation Dose of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Opportunistic Screening by Studying the Effect of Different Combinations of FFDM and DBT Views.

Authors:  Meihong Sheng; Juan Ji; Chenying Zhang; Zirui Zhang; Shenchu Gong; Yihua Lu
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2021-03-30

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast.

Authors:  Rashmi Sudhir; Kamala Sannapareddy; Alekya Potlapalli; Pooja Boggaram Krishnamurthy; Suryakala Buddha; Veeraiah Koppula
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Comparative Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with and without Ultrasound versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Detecting Breast Lesion.

Authors:  Janice Hui Ling Goh; Toh Leong Tan; Suraya Aziz; Iqbal Hussain Rizuana
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.