Dataset Information

Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Berg WA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2718688 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextAnnual 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.ObjectiveTo determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsFrom 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 measuresCancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate.ResultsA 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.ConclusionThe 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Project description:ImportanceDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk.Design, setting, and participantsCohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries.ExposuresBreast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk.Main outcomes and measuresRates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting.ResultsAmong 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32).Conclusions and relevanceScreening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.

Project description:To determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US).Women(n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants.Of 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons.Of 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.

Project description: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.

Project description:ImportanceMany US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251?384 DBT and 2?000?681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019.ExposuresDigital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations.Main outcomes and measuresRecall rate and cancer detection rate.ResultsA total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2?252?065 DM and DBT examinations (2?000?681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251?384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710?934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1?448?981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.