Mammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for ...breast cancer.
Two thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided.
One hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval CI = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001).
Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.
The light appearance of epithelium and stroma in a mammogram (mammographic density) can hide the presence of a cancer. A careful study of this problem found that extensive mammographic density is an ...important risk factor for breast cancer.
Mammographic density can hide the presence of a cancer. A careful study of this problem found that extensive mammographic density is an important risk factor for breast cancer.
The radiographic appearance of the breast varies among women because of differences in tissue composition and differences in the radiographic attenuation properties of fat, stroma, and epithelium.
1
Fat is radiographically lucent and appears dark on a mammogram. In contrast, epithelium and stroma are radiographically dense and look light, an appearance we refer to as mammographic density. In 1976, Wolfe described an association between a qualitative classification of mammographic densities and the risk of breast cancer,
2
,
3
and now substantial literature shows that more extensive density is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Women with dense tissue in 75% . . .
CONTEXT Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by ...both mammography and ultrasound screening. OBJECTIVE To determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate. RESULTS A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results. CONCLUSION The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) ± ultrasonography (US) with the ...diagnostic accuracy of MX ± US alone.
One hundred ten consenting women with 148 breast lesions (84 malignant, 64 benign) underwent two-view dual-energy CEDM in addition to MX and US using a specially modified digital mammography system (Senographe DS, GE Healthcare). Reference standard was histology for 138 lesions and follow-up for 12 lesions. Six radiologists from 4 institutions interpreted the images using high-resolution softcopy workstations. Confidence of presence (5-point scale), probability of cancer (7-point scale), and BI-RADS scores were evaluated for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve areas were estimated for each reader and overall. Visibility of findings on MX ± CEDM and MX ± US was evaluated with a Likert scale.
The average per-lesion sensitivity across all readers was significantly higher for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US (0.78 vs. 0.71 using BIRADS, p = 0.006). All readers improved their clinical performance and the average area under the ROC curve was significantly superior for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US ((0.87 vs 0.83, p = 0.045). Finding visibility was similar or better on MX ± CEDM than MX ± US in 80% of cases.
Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to MX ± US improves diagnostic accuracy compared to MX ± US alone. Addition of iodinated contrast agent to MX facilitates the visualization of breast lesions.
The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for breast cancer screening exceeds that of mammography. If MRI screening reduces mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, it is expected ...that the incidence of advanced-stage breast cancers should be reduced in women undergoing MRI screening compared with those undergoing conventional screening.
We followed 1,275 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation for a mean of 3.2 years. In total, 445 women were enrolled in an MRI screening trial in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and 830 were in the comparison group. The cumulative incidences of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), early-stage, and late-stage breast cancers were estimated at 6 years in the cohorts.
There were 41 cases of breast cancer in the MRI-screened cohort (9.2%) and 76 cases in the comparison group (9.2%). The cumulative incidence of DCIS or stage I breast cancer at 6 years was 13.8% (95% CI, 9.1% to 18.5%) in the MRI-screened cohort and 7.2% (95% CI, 4.5% to 9.9%) in the comparison group (P = .01). The cumulative incidence of stages II to IV breast cancers was 1.9% (95% CI, 0.2% to 3.7%) in the MRI-screened cohort and 6.6% (95% CI, 3.8% to 9.3%) in the comparison group (P = .02). The adjusted hazard ratio for the development of stages II to IV breast cancer associated with MRI screening was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.72; P = .008).
Annual surveillance with MRI is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of advanced-stage breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.
To retrospectively compare the accuracy of digital versus film mammography in population subgroups of the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) defined by combinations of age, ...menopausal status, and breast density, by using either biopsy results or follow-up information as the reference standard.
DMIST included women who underwent both digital and film screening mammography. Institutional review board approval at all participating sites and informed consent from all participating women in compliance with HIPAA was obtained for DMIST and this retrospective analysis. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for each modality were compared within each subgroup evaluated (age < 50 vs 50-64 vs >or= 65 years, dense vs nondense breasts at mammography, and pre- or perimenopausal vs postmenopausal status for the two younger age cohorts 10 new subgroups in toto) while controlling for multiple comparisons (P < .002 indicated a significant difference). All DMIST cancers were evaluated with respect to mammographic detection method (digital vs film vs both vs neither), mammographic lesion type (mass, calcifications, or other), digital machine type, mammographic and pathologic size and diagnosis, existence of prior mammographic study at time of interpretation, months since prior mammographic study, and compressed breast thickness.
Thirty-three centers enrolled 49 528 women. Breast cancer status was determined for 42,760 women, the group included in this study. Pre- or perimenopausal women younger than 50 years who had dense breasts at film mammography comprised the only subgroup for which digital mammography was significantly better than film (AUCs, 0.79 vs 0.54; P = .0015). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System-based sensitivity in this subgroup was 0.59 for digital and 0.27 for film mammography. AUCs were not significantly different in any of the other subgroups. For women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts, the AUC showed a nonsignificant tendency toward film being better than digital mammography (AUCs, 0.88 vs 0.70; P = .0025).
Digital mammography performed significantly better than film for pre- and perimenopausal women younger than 50 years with dense breasts, but film tended nonsignificantly to perform better for women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts.
In July 2011, the provincial government of Ontario, Canada, approved funding for the addition of annual breast MRI to mammography screening for all women 30-69 years old considered to be at high risk ...for breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of screening breast MRI as compared with mammography in a population-based high-risk screening program.
A retrospective review identified 650 eligible high-risk women who underwent screening breast MRI and mammography between July 2011 and January 2013 at one institution. Results of 806 screening rounds (comprising both MRI and mammography) were reviewed.
Malignancy was diagnosed in 13 patients (invasive cancer in nine, ductal carcinoma in situ in three one with microinvasion, and chest wall metastasis in one). Of the 13 cancers, 12 (92.3%) were detected by MRI and four (30.8%) by mammography. In nine of these patients, the cancer was diagnosed by MRI only, resulting in an incremental cancer detection rate of 10 cancers per 1000 women screened. MRI screening had significantly higher sensitivity than mammography (92.3% vs 30.8%) but lower specificity (85.9% vs 96.8%). MRI also resulted in a higher callback rate for a 6-month follow-up study (BI-RADS category 3 assessment) than mammography (119 14.8% vs 13 1.6%) and more image-guided biopsies than mammography (95 11.8% vs 19 2.4%).
MRI is a useful adjunct to mammography for screening in high-risk women, resulting in a significantly higher rate of cancer detection. However, this was found to be at the cost of more imaging and biopsies for lesions that ultimately proved to be benign.
CONTEXT Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography. OBJECTIVE To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen ...test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone. RESULTS Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval CI, 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean SE, 12.6 3.0 mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%). CONCLUSIONS Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501
In this study of 42,760 asymptomatic women, the overall diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography as a means of screening for breast cancer was similar, but the former method was better ...among women under the age of 50 years, women with radiographically dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women.
In 42,760 asymptomatic women, the overall diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography was similar, but digital mammography was better among women under 50 years, women with radiographically dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women.
There is now general agreement that screening mammography reduces the rate of death from breast cancer among women who are 40 years of age or older.
1
,
2
Meta-analyses of eight large, randomized trials found a reduction in the mortality rate of 16 to 35 percent among women 50 to 69 years of age who were assigned to screening mammography,
1
whereas women who were 40 to 49 years of age at entry had a smaller but significant reduction of 15 to 20 percent.
1
–
3
The smaller benefit of screening in younger women is probably due to a lower incidence of breast . . .
The sensitivity and specificity of mammography are limited in highly fibroglandular breasts. Digital mammography provides increased sensitivity in young women and those with moderately dense breasts, ...and digital three-dimensional mammography promises further improvement. 2-4 For women with the densest breasts, however, radiography is unlikely to be the optimum solution.
PDF
