| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From 222 E 68th St, New York, NY 10021 (T.M.K., J.L.) and Department of Radiology, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY (T.M.K., J.H.N.). From the 1998 RSNA scientific assembly. Received October 11, 2001; revision requested December 5; final revision received April 11, 2002; accepted April 18. Address correspondence to T.M.K. (e-mail: tkolb@panix.com).
PURPOSE: To (a) determine the performance of screening mammography, ultrasonography (US), and physical examination (PE); (b) analyze the influence of age, hormonal status, and breast density; (c) compare the size and stage of tumors detected with each modality; and (d) determine which modality or combination of modalities optimize cancer detection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 11,130 asymptomatic women underwent 27,825 screening sessions, (mammography and subsequent PE). Women with dense breasts subsequently underwent screening US. Abnormalities were deemed positive if biopsy findings revealed malignancy and negative if findings from biopsy or all screening examinations were negative.
RESULTS: In 221 women, 246 cancers were found. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and accuracy of mammography were 77.6%, 98.8%, 99.8%, 35.8%, and 98.6%, respectively; those of PE, 27.6%, 99.4%, 99.4%, 28.9%, and 98.8%, respectively; and those of US, 75.3%, 96.8%, 99.7%, 20.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. Screening breast US increased the number of women diagnosed with nonpalpable invasive cancers by 42% (30 of 71). Mammographic sensitivity declined significantly with increasing breast density (P < .01) (48% for the densest breasts) and in younger women with dense breasts (P = .02); the effects were independent. Mammography and US together had significantly higher sensitivity (97%) than did mammography and PE together (74%) (P < .001). Tumors detected at mammography and/or US were significantly smaller (P = .01) and of lower stage (P = .01) than those detected at PE.
CONCLUSION: Mammographic sensitivity for breast cancer declines significantly with increasing breast density and is independently higher in older women with dense breasts. Addition of screening US significantly increases detection of small cancers and depicts significantly more cancers and at smaller size and lower stage than does PE, which detects independently extremely few cancers. Hormonal status has no significant effect on effectiveness of screening independent of breast density.
© RSNA, 2002
Index terms: Breast, US, 00.129, 00.12989 • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.30 • Breast radiography, 00.11 • Cancer screening, 00.11. 00.129, 00.12989
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. F. Brem, A. C. Floerke, J. A. Rapelyea, C. Teal, T. Kelly, and V. Mathur Breast-specific Gamma Imaging as an Adjunct Imaging Modality for the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer Radiology, June 1, 2008; 247(3): 651 - 657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. K. Kuhl The "Coming of Age" of Nonmammographic Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, May 14, 2008; 299(18): 2203 - 2205. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Lee, M. Pintilie, D. C. Hodgson, P. E. Goss, and M. Crump Screening mammography for young women treated with supradiaphragmatic radiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma Ann. Onc., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 62 - 67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Honjo, J. Ando, T. Tsukioka, H. Morikubo, M. Ichimura, M. Sunagawa, T. Hasegawa, T. Watanabe, T. Kodama, K. Tominaga, et al. Relative and Combined Performance of Mammography and Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Screening in the General Population: a Pilot Study in Tochigi Prefecture, Japan Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2007; 37(9): 715 - 720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. D. Lehman, C. Isaacs, M. D. Schnall, E. D. Pisano, S. M. Ascher, P. T. Weatherall, D. A. Bluemke, D. J. Bowen, P. K. Marcom, D. K. Armstrong, et al. Cancer Yield of Mammography, MR, and US in High-Risk Women: Prospective Multi-Institution Breast Cancer Screening Study Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 381 - 388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A Karahaliou, S Skiadopoulos, I Boniatis, P Sakellaropoulos, E Likaki, G Panayiotakis, and L Costaridou Texture analysis of tissue surrounding microcalcifications on mammograms for breast cancer diagnosis Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2007; 80(956): 648 - 656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Mesurolle, L. Kadoch, M. El-Khoury, A. Lisbona, N. Dendukuri, and W. D. Foulkes Sonographic Features of Breast Carcinoma Presenting as Masses in BRCA Gene Mutation Carriers J. Ultrasound Med., June 1, 2007; 26(6): 817 - 824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Terret, G. B. Zulian, A. Naiem, and G. Albrand Multidisciplinary Approach to the Geriatric Oncology Patient J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2007; 25(14): 1876 - 1881. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. K. Plevritis, A. W. Kurian, B. M. Sigal, B. L. Daniel, D. M. Ikeda, F. E. Stockdale, and A. M. Garber Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA, May 24, 2006; 295(20): 2374 - 2384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. J. Fenton, M. B. Barton, A. M. Geiger, L. J. Herrinton, S. J. Rolnick, E. L. Harris, W. E. Barlow, L. M. Reisch, S. W. Fletcher, and J. G. Elmore Screening Clinical Breast Examination: How Often Does It Miss Lethal Breast Cancer? J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, November 1, 2005; 2005(35): 67 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Brem, J. A. Rapelyea, G. Zisman, K. Mohtashemi, J. Raub, C. B. Teal, S. Majewski, and B. L. Welch Occult Breast Cancer: Scintimammography with High-Resolution Breast-specific Gamma Camera in Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 274 - 280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A. Khan, J. A. Wolfman, L. Segal, S. Benjamin, R. Nayar, E. L. Wiley, M. Bryk, and M. Morrow Ductal Lavage Findings in Women With Mammographic Microcalcifications Undergoing Biopsy Ann. Surg. Oncol., September 1, 2005; 12(9): 689 - 696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. D. Pisano, C. A. Gatsonis, M. J. Yaffe, R. E. Hendrick, A. N. A. Tosteson, D. G. Fryback, L. W. Bassett, J. K. Baum, E. F. Conant, R. A. Jong, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: Objectives and Methodology Radiology, August 1, 2005; 236(2): 404 - 412. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Aberle, C. Chiles, C. Gatsonis, B. J. Hillman, C. D. Johnson, B. L. McClennan, D. G. Mitchell, E. D. Pisano, M. D. Schnall, and A. G. Sorensen Imaging and Cancer: Research Strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 741 - 751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. M. Kavanagh, J. Cawson, G. B. Byrnes, G. G. Giles, G. Marr, B. Tong, D. M. Gertig, and J. L. Hopper Hormone Replacement Therapy, Percent Mammographic Density, and Sensitivity of Mammography Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2005; 14(5): 1060 - 1064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Koomen, E. D. Pisano, C. Kuzmiak, D. Pavic, and R. McLelland Future Directions in Breast Imaging J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1674 - 1677. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Sardanelli, F. Podo, and L. E. Philpotts Women with History of Breast Cancer Excluded from Screening Programs: Is It the Right Choice? * Dr Philpotts responds: Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 971 - 972. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Oestreicher, C. D. Lehman, D. J. Seger, D. S. M. Buist, and E. White The Incremental Contribution of Clinical Breast Examination to Invasive Cancer Detection in a Mammography Screening Program Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 428 - 432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Brem, J. W. Hoffmeister, J. A. Rapelyea, G. Zisman, K. Mohtashemi, G. Jindal, M. P. DiSimio, and S. K. Rogers Impact of Breast Density on Computer-Aided Detection for Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 439 - 444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.-L. Urbain Breast cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy and health care policies Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 18, 2005; 172(2): 210 - 211. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Berg, L. Gutierrez, M. S. NessAiver, W. B. Carter, M. Bhargavan, R. S. Lewis, and O. B. Ioffe Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammography, Clinical Examination, US, and MR Imaging in Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 830 - 849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A. Khan, E. L. Wiley, N. Rodriguez, C. Baird, R. Ramakrishnan, R. Nayar, M. Bryk, K. B. Bethke, V. L. Staradub, J. Wolfman, et al. Ductal Lavage Findings in Women With Known Breast Cancer Undergoing Mastectomy J Natl Cancer Inst, October 20, 2004; 96(20): 1510 - 1517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Warner, D. B. Plewes, K. A. Hill, P. A. Causer, J. T. Zubovits, R. A. Jong, M. R. Cutrara, G. DeBoer, M. J. Yaffe, S. J. Messner, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Mammography, and Clinical Breast Examination JAMA, September 15, 2004; 292(11): 1317 - 1325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Kumar, S. Mitchell, A. Alavi, J. Czernin, and D. Vranjesevic 18F-FDG Uptake and Breast Density in Women with Normal Breast Tissue J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2004; 45(8): 1423 - 1424. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Strano, P. Crystal, and D. Kopans Adjunct Sonography and Not Screening in Cancer Detection Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2004; 183(2): 539 - 539. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Kriege, C. T.M. Brekelmans, C. Boetes, P. E. Besnard, H. M. Zonderland, I. M. Obdeijn, R. A. Manoliu, T. Kok, H. Peterse, M. M.A. Tilanus-Linthorst, et al. Efficacy of MRI and Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening in Women with a Familial or Genetic Predisposition N. Engl. J. Med., July 29, 2004; 351(5): 427 - 437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. B. Halls, P. Crystal, I. Karakis, S. Strano, and M. Koretz Statistical Comparison of Proportions Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2004; 182 (1): 259 - 260. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Kopans, B. Monsees, and S. A. Feig Screening for "Cancer": When is it Valid?--Lessons from the Mammography Experience Radiology, November 1, 2003; 229(2): 319 - 327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. J. Hall AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in US: Beyond the Basics: Elasticity Imaging with US RadioGraphics, November 1, 2003; 23(6): 1657 - 1671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Brem, J. Baum, M. Lechner, S. Kaplan, S. Souders, L. G. Naul, and J. Hoffmeister Improvement in Sensitivity of Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection: A Multiinstitutional Trial Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 687 - 693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. A. Smith, D. Saslow, K. Andrews Sawyer, W. Burke, M. E. Costanza, W. P. Evans III, R. S. Foster Jr., E. Hendrick, H. J. Eyre, and S. Sener American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003 CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2003; 53(3): 141 - 169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Kopans Effectiveness of US Breast Cancer Screening Remains to Be Demonstrated [letter] Radiology, May 1, 2003; 227(2): 606 - 606. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Lewin Breast US Screening: Effect of Prevalent Cancers [letter] Radiology, May 1, 2003; 227(2): 606 - 607. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. S. Gerson and W. A. Berg Screening breast sonography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180 (5): 1477 - 1478. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Shetty, Y. P. Shah, and R. S. Sharman Prospective Evaluation of the Value of Combined Mammographic and Sonographic Assessment in Patients With Palpable Abnormalities of the Breast J. Ultrasound Med., March 1, 2003; 22(3): 263 - 268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Vachon, T. A. Sellers, V. S. Pankratz, F. M. Hall, N. F. Boyd, J. L. Hopper, and E. Thurfjell Mammographic Density of the Breast N. Engl. J. Med., January 9, 2003; 348(2): 174 - 175. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Ultrasound Enhances Cancer-Screening Sensitivity in Women with Mammographically Dense Breasts Journal Watch Women's Health, December 4, 2002; 2002(1204): 8 - 8. [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
