Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts

Kevin M Kelly, Judy Dean, W Scott Comulada, Sung-Jae Lee, Kevin M Kelly, Judy Dean, W Scott Comulada, Sung-Jae Lee

Abstract

Purpose: Mammography, the standard method of breast cancer screening, misses many cancers, especially in dense-breasted women. We compared the performance and diagnostic yield of mammography alone versus an automated whole breast ultrasound (AWBU) plus mammography in women with dense breasts and/or at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Methods: AWBU screening was tested in 4,419 women having routine mammography (

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00649337). Cancers occurring during the study and subsequent 1-year follow-up were evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation for mammography alone, AWBU and mammography with AWBU were calculated.

Results: Breast cancer detection doubled from 23 to 46 in 6,425 studies using AWBU with mammography, resulting in an increase in diagnostic yield from 3.6 per 1,000 with mammography alone to 7.2 per 1,000 by adding AWBU. PPV for biopsy based on mammography findings was 39.0% and for AWBU 38.4%. The number of detected invasive cancers 10 mm or less in size tripled from 7 to 21 when AWBU findings were added to mammography.

Conclusion: AWBU resulted in significant cancer detection improvement compared with mammography alone. Additional detection and the smaller size of invasive cancers may justify this technology's expense for women with dense breasts and/or at high risk for breast cancer.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selected images of a 54-year-old asymptomatic woman with dense breasts and no previous history of breast cancer. a Craniocaudal digital mammograms taken the same day as the AWBU study. b Mediolateral oblique digital mammograms taken the same day as the AWBU study. c Transverse AWBU image of the right breast at 11:30, 6 cm from the nipple; white arrow shows a 7 mm, grade I, stage 1, invasive ductal carcinoma. d AWBU image of the left breast at 12:00, 3 cm from the nipple; two white arrows show 10 mm, grade I, stage 1, invasive carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ

References

    1. Colditz GA, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, et al. Family history, age, and risk of breast cancer. Prospective data from the Nurses’ Health Study. JAMA. 1993;270:338–343.
    1. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–1886. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879.
    1. Seidman H, Stellman SD, Mushinski MH. A different perspective on breast cancer risk factors: some implications of the nonattributable risk. CA Cancer J Clin. 1982;32:301–313. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.32.5.301.
    1. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Ten to 14-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982;69:349–355.
    1. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1081–1087. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081.
    1. Dean JC, Ilvento CC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: Prospective study of 104 cancers. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:20–28. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0111.
    1. Ho WT, Lam PWT. Clinical performance of computer-assisted detection (CAD) system in detecting carcinoma in breasts of different densities. Clin Rad. 2003;58:133–136. doi: 10.1053/crad.2002.1131.
    1. Pisano ED, Gastonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1–11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911.
    1. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–236. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa062790.
    1. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology. 1992;184:613–617.
    1. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O’Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2001;219:192–202.
    1. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75.
    1. Lin SP, Brown JJ. MR contrast agents: physical and pharmacologic basics. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:884–899. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20955.
    1. Griebsh I, Brown J, Boggis C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:801–810. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603356.
    1. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370:485–492. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61232-X.
    1. Schmutzler RK, Rhiem K, Breuer P, et al. Outcome of a structured surveillance programme in women with a familial predisposition of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2006;15:483–489. doi: 10.1097/01.cej.0000220624.70234.14.
    1. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:427–500. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031759.
    1. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective mluticentre cohort study (MARIBS) Lancet. 2005;365:1769–1778. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66646-9.
    1. Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology. 1998;208:717–723.
    1. Mendelson EB, Tobin CE. Critical pathways in using breast US. Radiographics. 1995;15:935–945.
    1. Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, et al. US guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology. 1993;187:507–511.
    1. Benson SR, Blue J, Judd K, Harman JE. Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2004;188:381–385. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.06.032.
    1. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, Nessaiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–849. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333031484.
    1. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:177–182.
    1. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001;221:641–649. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2213010364.
    1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US—diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology. 1998;207:191–199.
    1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. 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. 2002;225:165–175. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2251011667.
    1. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1675–1679.
    1. Moon WK, Noh DY, Im JG. Multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancers: bilateral whole-breast US in the preoperative evaluation of patients. Radiology. 2002;224:569–576. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2242011215.
    1. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoik-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:921–927.
    1. Kopans DB. Breast cancer screening with ultrasonography. Lancet. 1999;354:2096–2097. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)90400-2.
    1. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:2151–2163. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151.
    1. Chou YH, Tiu CM, Chiang HR, Chen SP, Chiou HJ, Chiou SY (2006) Ultrasound ACR BI-RADSR Categories Applied in an Automated Breast Ultrasound System: Diagnostic Reliability. Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America
    1. Destounis S, Young W, Hanson S, Somerville P, Murphy P, Zuley M (2005) Automated Breast Ultrasound: A Pilot Study. Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America
    1. Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M, et al. Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification–a pilot study. Rofo. 2008;9:804–808.
    1. D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data system, BI-RADS: mammography. 4. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
    1. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. 1. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
    1. SAS Institute . SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Publishing; 2004.
    1. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Locally Written SAS Macros. Mayo Clinic Web Site. Accessed April 4, 2009, at .
    1. Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics. 2000;56:345–351. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00345.x.
    1. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al. Quantitative Classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:670–675. doi: 10.1093/jnci/87.9.670.
    1. Berg W. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: What now and what next? Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:390–399. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1706.
    1. Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, Obdeijn IMM, Bartels KCM, deKonig HJ, Oudkerk M. First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;63:53–60. doi: 10.1023/A:1006480106487.
    1. Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA. 2006;295:2374–2384. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.20.2374.
    1. Weaver DL, Rosenberg RD, Barlow WE, et al. Pathologic Findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: Population-Based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography. Cancer. 2006;106:732–742. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21652.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir