Dataset Information

Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Women: Results From a Population-Based Cancer Screening Program in China.

ABSTRACT: Background: Ultrasound is an important modality for breast cancer screening. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of ultrasound screening in population-based cancer screening program in lacking. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of ultrasound screening in a population-based breast cancer screening in China. Methods: The analyses were conducted in the context of the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China, which recruited 1,938,996 eligible participants aged 40-69 years from 16 provinces in China from 2012 to 2016. We included 72,250 women assessed to be high-risk for breast cancer who undertook ultrasound screening per study protocol. Diagnostic yield according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) was evaluated. Risk factors associated with the positive findings of ultrasound were also explored by univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Overall, there were 9,765 (13.51%) women had positive findings of ultrasound screening, including 8,487 (11.75%), 1,210 (1.67%), and 68 (0.09%) of BI-RADS categories of III, IV, and V, respectively. Younger ages, late age of 1st live birth and short-term breast feeding were found to be positively associated with positive findings under ultrasound in multivariate analyses stratified by menopause status and family history of breast cancer. Multivariable prediction models were constructed and yielded only modest prediction accuracy, with AUCs around 0.55. Conclusions: We found the diagnostic yield of ultrasound screening for breast cancer in high-risk population was satisfactory. Prediction models based on environmental risk factors had limited prediction accuracy and need to be improved in the future.

SUBMITTER: Wang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6491776 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Women: Results From a Population-Based Cancer Screening Program in China.

Wang Yong Y Chen Hongda H Li Ni N Ren Jiansong J Zhang Kai K Dai Min M He Jie J

Frontiers in oncology 20190424

<b>Background:</b> Ultrasound is an important modality for breast cancer screening. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of ultrasound screening in population-based cancer screening program in lacking. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of ultrasound screening in a population-based breast cancer screening in China. <b>Methods:</b> The analyses were conducted in the context of the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China, which recruited 1,938,996 eligible participants aged 40-69 year ...[more]

PMID: 31069168

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate at which sensitivity digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would become cost-effective compared to digital mammography (DM) in a population breast cancer screening program, given a constant estimate of specificity.MethodsIn a microsimulation model, the cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for women aged 50-75 was simulated for three scenarios: DBT for women with dense breasts and DM for women with fatty breasts (scenario 1), DBT for the whole population (scenario 2) or maintaining DM screening (reference). For DM, sensitivity was varied depending on breast density from 65 to 87%, and for DBT from 65 to 100%. The specificity was set at 96.5% for both DM and DBT. Direct medical costs were considered, including screening, biopsy and treatment costs. Scenarios were considered to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below €20,000 per life year gain (LYG).ResultsFor both scenarios, the ICER was more favourable at increasing DBT sensitivity. Compared with DM screening, 0.8-10.2% more LYGs were found when DBT sensitivity was at least 75% for scenario 1, and 4.7-18.7% when DBT sensitivity was at least 80% for scenario 2. At €96 per DBT, scenario 1 was cost-effective at a DBT sensitivity of at least 90%, and at least 95% for scenario 2. At €80 per DBT, these values decreased to 80% and 90%, respectively.ConclusionDBT is more likely to be a cost-effective alternative to mammography in women with dense breasts. Whether DBT could be cost-effective in a general population highly depends on DBT costs.Key points• DBT could be a cost-effective screening modality for women with dense breasts when its sensitivity is at least 90% at a maximum cost per screen of €96. • DBT has the potential to be cost-effective for screening all women when sensitivity is at least 90% at a maximum cost per screen of €80. • Whether DBT could be used as an alternative to mammography for screening all women is highly dependent on the cost of DBT per screen.

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:As one of its responses to the increasing global burden of breast cancer (BC), China has deployed a national registration and BC screening campaign. The present report describes these programs and the initial results of these national BC control strategies, highlighting the challenges to be considered.The primary BC incidence and prevalence data were obtained from the Chinese National Central Cancer Registry. MapInfo software was used to map the geographic distribution and variation. The time trends were estimated by the annual percentage of change from 2003 to 2009. The description of the screening plans and preliminary results were provided by the Ministry of Health.Chinese cancer registries were primarily developed and activated in the East and Coastal regions of China, with only 12.5% of the registries located in West China. Geographic variation was noted, with the incidence of BC higher in North China than in South China and in urban areas compared with rural areas. Of great interest, these registries reported that the overall BC incidence has been increasing in China, with an earlier age of onset compared with Western countries and a peak incidence rate at age 50. In response to this increasing incidence and early age of onset, BC screening programs assessed 1.46 million women aged 35-59 years, using clinical breast examinations and ultrasound as primary screening tools between 2009 and 2011. The diagnostic rate for this screening program was only 48.0/10(5) with 440 cases of early stage BC. Early stage BC was detected in nearly 70% of screened patients. Subsequently, a second-generation screening program was conducted that included older women aged 35-64 years and an additional 6 million women were screened.The cancer registration system in China has been uneven, with a greater focus on East rather than West China. The data from these registries demonstrate regional variation, an increasing BC incidence, and an early age of onset. The 2009 to 2011 BC screening program targeting women aged 35-59 years had a low detection rate that resulted in a second-generation screening program that extended the cohort size and ages screened to 35-64 years.Cancer registration has been active in China for decades; however, a national survey of registries has not been routinely reported. This study used MapInfo to describe the reported data and found asymmetric registration activities, geographic variations in breast cancer (BC) burdens, and an increasing incidence with a peak at age 50. The initial Chinese BC screening programs focused on a relatively young population of women aged 35-59 years and had a low detection rate, but 69.7% of patients had early stage BC. Older women were included in the second-generation screening programs, and an additional 6 million women were screened. Consideration of regional variations and age is necessary to optimize the efficiency and utility of BC screening in China, with the ultimate goal to reduce BC mortality.

Project description:ContextScreening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsFrom 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 measuresDiagnostic 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.ResultsForty 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%).ConclusionsAdding 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Dataset Information

Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Women: Results From a Population-Based Cancer Screening Program in China.

Publications

Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Women: Results From a Population-Based Cancer Screening Program in China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets