Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online before print October 30, 2001, 10.1148/radiol.2213010364
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2213010364v1
221/3/641    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, S. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, S. S.
(Radiology. 2001;221:641-649.)
© RSNA, 2001


Breast Imaging

Clinical Utility of Bilateral Whole-Breast US in the Evaluation of Women with Dense Breast Tissue1

Stuart S. Kaplan, MD

1 From the Strax Institute, 4300 N University Dr, Suite E-200, Lauderhill, FL 33351. From the 2000 RSNA scientific assembly. Received January 25, 2001; revision requested March 6; revision received June 5; accepted July 5. Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: skaplan659@aol.com).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast ultrasonography (US) as an adjunct examination to mammography in asymptomatic women with dense (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density category 3 or 4) breast tissue.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 1998 and April 2000, 1,862 patients with negative findings at clinical examinations, negative mammographic results, and breast tissue with BI-RADS category 3 or 4 density were evaluated with bilateral whole-breast US for occult cystic and solid masses, areas of architectural distortion, and acoustic shadowing. Suggestive findings were compared with tissue diagnoses from US-guided core biopsy specimens. US was initially performed by a US or a mammography technologist. The average time to perform the examination was approximately 10 minutes. Abnormal findings were corroborated by a fellowship-trained breast-imaging radiologist.

RESULTS: In the 1,862 women examined with bilateral whole-breast US, 57 biopsies were recommended in 56 patients; follow-up data were available in 51 of the 56 patients. Six breast cancers were detected (cancer detection rate, 0.3%).

CONCLUSION: Bilateral whole-breast US, when performed in patients with dense (BI-RADS category 3 or 4 density) breast tissue, is useful in detecting breast cancer not discovered with mammography or clinical breast examination. The 0.3% cancer detection rate compares favorably with that of screening mammography and with that in previously published studies involving bilateral whole-breast US.

Index terms: Breast, parenchymal pattern • Breast, US, 00.129, 00.12989 • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.32 • Breast neoplasms, US, 00.129, 00.12989 • Breast radiography, quality assurance, 00.11 • Cancer screening, 00.11. 00.129, 00.12989




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. J. Kim, E.-K. Kim, J. Y. Kwak, B.-W. Park, S.-I. Kim, J. Sohn, and K. K. Oh
Sonographic Surveillance for the Detection of Contralateral Metachronous Breast Cancer in an Asian Population
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 221 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
N. Houssami and S. Ciatto
Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening
JAMA, October 1, 2008; 300(13): 1514 - 1515.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, D. Lehrer, M. Bohm-Velez, E. D. Pisano, R. A. Jong, W. P. Evans, M. J. Morton, et al.
Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer
JAMA, May 14, 2008; 299(18): 2151 - 2163.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
C. K. Kuhl
The "Coming of Age" of Nonmammographic Screening for Breast Cancer
JAMA, May 14, 2008; 299(18): 2203 - 2205.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E.-K. Kim, K. H. Ko, K. K. Oh, J. Y. Kwak, J. K. You, M. J. Kim, and B.-W. Park
Clinical Application of the BI-RADS Final Assessment to Breast Sonography in Conjunction with Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1209 - 1215.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, G. Hopf, C. Graf, and E. A. Sickles
Probably Benign Breast Masses at US: Is Follow-up an Acceptable Alternative to Biopsy?
Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 87 - 93.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, and E. B. Mendelson
Operator Dependence of Physician-performed Whole-Breast US: Lesion Detection and Characterization.
Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 355 - 365.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, and E. L. Madsen
Lesion Detection and Characterization in a Breast US Phantom: Results of the ACRIN 6666 Investigators
Radiology, June 1, 2006; 239(3): 693 - 702.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
K. Drukker, M. L. Giger, and C. E. Metz
Robustness of Computerized Lesion Detection and Classification Scheme across Different Breast US Platforms
Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 834 - 840.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
J. K. You, E.-K. Kim, J. Y. Kwak, M. J. Kim, K. K. Oh, B.-W. Park, and W. I. Yang
Focal Fibrosis of the Breast Diagnosed by a Sonographically Guided Core Biopsy of Nonpalpable Lesions: Imaging Findings and Clinical Relevance
J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2005; 24(10): 1377 - 1384.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg
Sonographically Depicted Breast Clustered Microcysts: Is Follow-Up Appropriate?
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 952 - 959.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
J. H. Shin, B.-K. Han, Y. H. Choe, S.-J. Nam, W. Park, and Y.-H. Im
Ultrasonographic Detection of Occult Cancer in Patients After Surgical Therapy for Breast Cancer
J. Ultrasound Med., May 1, 2005; 24(5): 643 - 649.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. B. Kopans
Sonography Should Not Be Used for Breast Cancer Screening Until Its Efficacy Has Been Proven Scientifically
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2004; 182(2): 489 - 491.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. T. Yang and G. M. K. Tse
Sonographic, Mammographic, and Histopathologic Correlation of Symptomatic Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2004; 182(1): 101 - 110.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. A. Morris, L. Liberman, D. J. Ballon, M. Robson, A. F. Abramson, A. Heerdt, and D. D. Dershaw
MRI of Occult Breast Carcinoma in a High-Risk Population
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 619 - 626.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. Crystal, S. D. Strano, S. Shcharynski, and M. J. Koretz
Using Sonography to Screen Women with Mammographically Dense Breasts
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2003; 181(1): 177 - 182.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
I. Leconte, C. Feger, C. Galant, M. Berliere, B. V. Berg, W. D'Hoore, and B. Maldague
Mammography and Subsequent Whole-Breast Sonography of Nonpalpable Breast Cancers: The Importance of Radiologic Breast Density
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2003; 180(6): 1675 - 1679.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
F. M. Hall, T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse
Screening Breast US [letter] * Dr Kolb and colleagues respond:
Radiology, May 1, 2003; 227(2): 607 - 609.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg
Rationale for a Trial of Screening Breast Ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1225 - 1228.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
L. Liberman, E. A. Morris, D. D. Dershaw, A. F. Abramson, and L. K. Tan
MR Imaging of the Ipsilateral Breast in Women with Percutaneously Proven Breast Cancer
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2003; 180(4): 901 - 910.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
V. P. Jackson
Screening Mammography: Controversies and Headlines
Radiology, November 1, 2002; 225(2): 323 - 326.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
F. M. Hall, M. S. Soo, E. L. Rosen, and J. A. Baker
Negative Predictive Value of Breast Imaging in Patients with Palpable Lesions
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2002; 179(4): 1073 - 1074.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse
Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations
Radiology, October 1, 2002; 225(1): 165 - 175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
F. M. Hall and S. S. Kaplan
Screening Breast US * Dr Kaplan responds:
Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 930 - 932.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2001 by the Radiological Society of North America.