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
- PMID: 12355001
- DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2251011667
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
Abstract
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.
Comment in
-
Effectiveness of US breast cancer screening remains to be demonstrated.Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):606; author reply 608-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2272021214. Radiology. 2003. PMID: 12732705 No abstract available.
-
Breast US screening: effect of prevalent cancers.Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):606-7; author reply 608-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2272021295. Radiology. 2003. PMID: 12732706 No abstract available.
-
Screening breast US.Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):607-8; author reply 608-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2272021325. Radiology. 2003. PMID: 12732707 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Screening ultrasonography revealed 15% of mammographically occult breast cancers.Breast Cancer. 2008;15(2):165-8. doi: 10.1007/s12282-007-0024-x. Epub 2008 Jan 26. Breast Cancer. 2008. PMID: 18224382
-
[The use of echography and US-guided percutaneous puncture in addition to mammography for the detection of malignant breast tumors].Radiol Med. 1992 Apr;83(4):395-401. Radiol Med. 1992. PMID: 1318561 Italian.
-
Small (< 2.0-cm) breast cancers: mammographic and US findings at US-guided cryoablation--initial experience.Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):857-67. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333031734. Radiology. 2004. PMID: 15567802 Clinical Trial.
-
New approaches to the imaging, diagnosis, and biopsy of breast lesions.Cancer J. 2002 May-Jun;8 Suppl 1:S1-14. Cancer J. 2002. PMID: 12075695 Review.
-
Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Cancer. 2020 Jun 1;20(1):499. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-06992-1. BMC Cancer. 2020. PMID: 32487106 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Can Magnetic Resonance Imaging Replace Mammography and Ultrasonography for the Detection of Breast Lesions?Cureus. 2020 May 13;12(5):e8087. doi: 10.7759/cureus.8087. Cureus. 2020. PMID: 32542142 Free PMC article.
-
Diabetes, Obesity, and Inflammation: Impact on Clinical and Radiographic Features of Breast Cancer.Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Mar 9;22(5):2757. doi: 10.3390/ijms22052757. Int J Mol Sci. 2021. PMID: 33803201 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Automatic breast ultrasound: state of the art and future perspectives.Ecancermedicalscience. 2020 Jun 23;14:1062. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2020.1062. eCollection 2020. Ecancermedicalscience. 2020. PMID: 32728378 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Impact of lesion segmentation metrics on computer-aided diagnosis/detection in breast computed tomography.J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2014 Oct;1(3):031012. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.1.3.031012. Epub 2014 Dec 24. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2014. PMID: 26158052 Free PMC article.
-
Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis.Yonsei Med J. 2015 Sep;56(5):1352-8. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.5.1352. Yonsei Med J. 2015. PMID: 26256979 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical