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

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.     

Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts

OBJECTIVE: Mammographically dense breast tissue has been reported both as a cause of false-negative findings on mammography and as an indicator of increased breast cancer risk. We conducted this study to evaluate the role of breast sonography as a second-line screening test in women with mammographically dense breast tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2000 and January 2002, 1517 asymptomatic women with dense breasts and normal mammography and physical examination findings underwent physician-performed breast sonography as an adjunct screening test. Within the study group, 318 women had a first-degree family history or personal history of breast cancer. The high-risk subgroup comprised these women. The detection rate of breast cancer in this subgroup was compared with the detection rate in the remaining study population with baseline risk. RESULTS: Of 1517 women examined, seven breast cancers were diagnosed (cancer-detection rate, 0.46%). Four carcinomas were detected in high-risk women and three in women with baseline risk. The cancer-detection rate in the subgroup of high-risk women was 1.3%, significantly higher (p < 0.04) than the cancer-detection rate of 0.25% in the baseline risk subgroup. All cancers were T1 (range, 4-12 mm; mean, 9.6 mm). Sentinel lymph nodes were negative for cancer in six of seven carcinomas. CONCLUSION: Screening breast sonography in the population of women with dense breast tissue is useful in detecting small breast cancers that are not detected on mammography or clinical breast examination. The use of sonography as an adjunct to screening mammography in women with increased risk of breast cancer and dense breasts may be especially beneficial.     

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

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.     

Screening US in Patients with Mammographically Dense Breasts: Initial Experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41

Purpose: To determine performance and utilization of screening breast ultrasonography (US) in women with dense breast tissue who underwent additional screening breast US in the 1st year since implementation of Connecticut Public Act 09-41 requiring radiologists to inform patients with heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts at mammography that they may benefit from such examination. Materials and Methods: Informed consent was waived for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of 935 women with dense breasts at mammography who subsequently underwent handheld screening and whole-breast US from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. Results: Of 935 women, 614 (65.7%) were at low risk, 149 (15.9%) were at intermediate risk, and 87 (9.3%) were at high risk for breast cancer. Of the screening breast US examinations, in 701 (75.0%), results were classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 1 or 2; in 187 (20.0%), results were classified as BI-RADS category 3; and in 47 (5.0%), results were classified as BI-RADS category 4. Of 63 aspirations or biopsies recommended and performed in 53 patients, in nine, lesions were BI-RADS category 3, and in 54, lesions were BI-RADS category 4. Among 63 biopsies and aspirations, three lesions were malignant (all BI-RADS category 4, diagnosed with biopsy). All three cancers were smaller than 1 cm, were found in postmenopausal patients, and were solid masses. One cancer was found in each risk group. In 44 of 935 (4.7%) patients, examination results were false-positive. Overall positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy or aspirations performed in patients with BI-RADS category 4 masses was 6.5% (three of 46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%, 19%). Overall cancer detection rate was 3.2 cancers per 1000 women screened (three of 935; 95% CI: 0.8 cancers per 1000 women screened, 10 cancers per 1000 women screened). Conclusion: Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US offered to women in the general population with dense breasts can aid detection of small mammographically occult breast cancers (cancer detection rate, 0.8-10 cancers per 1000 women screened), although the overall PPV is low. ? RSNA, 2012.     

Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of routine ultrasonography in women with negative mammography and dense breasts [Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS D3-4)]. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied a protocol involving routine ultrasonography in a consecutive series of subjects with negative mammography and dense breasts. After evaluation by internal and external reviewers of cancers detected by ultrasonography performed to confirm negative mammography, we determined the additional cancer detection rate of ultrasonography and the cost of the protocol. RESULTS: Out of 17,883 total mammographies, 167 cancers were diagnosed (detection rate: 0.93%). Out of 257 suspicious mammographies, 138 cancers were detected. Out of 17,626 negative mammographies, 6,449 (36.5%) were classified as "dense breast" and underwent ultrasonography: 29 cancers were detected (detection rate: 0.44%, or 17.3% of total cancers). Out of 25 cancer cases reviewed, negative mammography and asymptomatic status was confirmed in 15 (detection rate 0.23%, or 8.9% of total cancers). The cancer detection rate was 0.11%, 0.22%, 0.32% and 0.14% for age groups <40, 40-49, 50-59 and >59, respectively. The cost per additional carcinoma detected by ultrasonography alone was euro 25,847.85 whereas that per examined woman was euro 21.68. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the possibility that ultrasonography can detect mammographically occult breast carcinoma in dense breasts. The evidence is insufficient to recommend this policy in routine screening practice but suggests that, at least in current clinical practice, adding ultrasonography in dense breasts may be useful despite the substantial costs.     

Clinical breast examination in a comprehensive breast cancer screening program: contribution and cost

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the cost of clinical breast examination (CBE) and its contribution to screening mammography in the detection of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study received a waiver of authorization from the institutional review board, informed patient consent was not required, and the study was compliant with HIPAA regulations. The records of 60 027 consecutive asymptomatic patients who underwent screening mammography were retrospectively reviewed. CBE was performed on all patients by a nurse practitioner. Patients with positive CBE findings were required to convert from screening to diagnostic evaluation; the number of cancer diagnoses that resulted was determined. The reports, four-view mammograms, or both of patients requiring conversion to diagnostic evaluation were reviewed to determine those patients likely to undergo diagnostic imaging on the basis of screening mammographic findings alone. The cost of CBE was calculated and divided by the number of cancers detected solely with CBE to determine the cost of CBE per additional cancer detected. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-four (age range, 32-95) of 60 027 asymptomatic patients had positive CBE findings which required conversion to diagnostic evaluation. Forty-six cancers in 44 patients were subsequently diagnosed; 32 would have been detected with mammography alone, whereas 14 were imperceptible at screening mammography. The cost of CBE was $122 598 per cancer detected solely with positive CBE findings. CONCLUSION: CBE performed by nurse practitioners led to the diagnosis of 14 cancers in 13 patients with mammographically occult tumors (0.02% of the screening population and approximately 3% of all cancers diagnosed at the facility during this study). The cost of detecting these additional cancers is estimated to be $122 598 per cancer.     

Breast cancers in women 35 years of age and younger: mammographic findings

During an 8-year period, 74 breast cancers were diagnosed in 66 patients 35 years of age and younger who underwent preoperative mammography. Mammograms and clinical data in these women were reviewed retrospectively to evaluate the mammographic findings and the efficacy of mammography. In 58 cases the cancer was detected by means of both clinical examination and mammography; in eight cases, mammography alone enabled readers to find the lesion; in seven cases, the lesion was found by means of clinical examination, but mammograms were negative; and in one case a cancer was found by means of incidental biopsy of the contralateral breast. Although 34 patients (52%) had dense breasts, mammography demonstrated the lesion in 66 cases (89%); the most common mammographic finding was microcalcifications, with or without associated masses (n = 28 [38%]). The authors do not suggest that screening of women younger than 35 years be performed routinely, but they believe that mammography can be valuable in screening young women at high risk for breast cancer or in confirming and suggesting prompt biopsy of a suspicious lesion.     

Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography, ultrasonography (US), and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for screening women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer and report interim results, with pathologic findings as standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board of each center approved the research; informed written consent was obtained. CBE, mammography, US, and MR imaging were performed for yearly screening of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, or women enrolled because of a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer (three or more events in first- or second-degree relatives in either maternal or paternal line; these included breast cancer in women younger than 60 years, ovarian cancer at any age, and male breast cancer at any age). RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight women (mean age, 46 years +/- 12 [standard deviation]) were enrolled. Breast cancer was found in 11 of 278 women at first round and seven of 99 at second round (14 invasive, four intraductal; eight were 相似文献   

The use of echography and US-guided percutaneous puncture in addition to mammography for the detection of malignant breast tumors]

At present, mammography is the most effective means to detect breast cancers, especially in the early stages. However, it lacks sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts. Moreover, indeterminate lesions are often seen on mammograms, which should undergo further examination before surgery. Due to recent improvement in the technique--i.e., the use of high-resolution 10-MHz transducers--US can now detect also nonpalpable breast lesions, about 1 cm phi. Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) under US guidance, which is complementary to US, allows a correct diagnosis of malignancy in a high number of cases. A total of 1821 women with indeterminate lesions at mammography underwent US, and 491 of them underwent US-guided FNB, in the Leno Hospital (Brescia, Italy), in the period 1988-90. Thirty-one breast cancers which had been missed at mammography and clinical examination were found. Three cases were carcinomas in situ, 23 invasive cancers were classified as pathological stage T1, and 15 cases had no axillary lymph node involvement. The routine use of US and FNB in addition to mammography when indeterminate lesions are seen on mammograms and in women with dense breasts may significantly reduce the number of both false-negative cases at mammography and unnecessary biopsies.     

Ultrasound for breast cancer screening and staging

The question then arises whether and for whom BWBS should be recommended. As yet there are no scientific criteria on which to base an answer, and the examination should not be considered the standard of care until its benefits can be established prospectively. We know that mass screening mammography will detect occult cancers in two to seven of every 1000 women screened, depending on patient age and whether the screens are prevalence or incidence examinations. Should we expect a similar yield for survey US? Kopans commented that Kolb's cancer detection rate was lower than would be expected from a mammographic prevalence screen. This was not a reasonable comparison. These women all had negative findings on screening mammography and would normally be told to have repeat screening mammography 1 year later. Kolb's cancer detection rate using US was comparable to a mammographic incidence screen, so the cancer diagnoses of these fortunate women were advanced by 1 year. To maximize the yield, it is obvious that US has little to offer over mammography in women with fatty breasts because mammography is less likely to be falsely negative. The group of patients in whom incidental cancers would be expected to be found more commonly are those with dense breasts who also are at higher-than-average risk either because of a previous personal history of breast cancer (Fig. 2) or a significant family history. Because it would be impractical to consider BWBS for all women with radiographically dense breasts, it would be useful to know what its potential yield would be in the relatively smaller group of high-risk patients. Annual mammography remains the standard of care for breast cancer screening. However, in our practice in Vancouver, I suggest that high-risk women undergo mammography and US annually, recognizing that this goes beyond the standard of care. Instead of having both examinations simultaneously, I recommend that they alternate the two modalities at 6-month intervals. Theoretically, this could increase lead-time in the detection of occult cancers. The usefulness of this approach remains to be determined. BWBS for staging in women known to have breast cancer has tremendous promise and should be considered for any breast cancer patient with dense breast tissue in whom the finding of additional unsuspected foci would change the planned management. The cost of implementation would be substantial but considerably less than staging MRI. A large-scale study comparing these two modalities is needed, including assessment of the impact of identifying additional mammographically occult lesions on breast cancer mortality.     

Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts

Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS)was performed in 3418 asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breasts. The addition of ABUS to mammography in women with greater than 50% breast density resulted in the detection of 12.3 per 1,000 breast cancers, compared to 4.6 per 1,000 by mammography alone. The mean tumor size was 14.3 mm and overall attributable risk of breast cancer was 19.92 (95% confidence level, 16.75 - 23.61) in our screened population. These preliminary results may justify the cost-benefit of implementing the judicious us of ABUS in conjunction with mammography in the dense breast screening population.     

Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine whether breast density affects the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for the detection of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine hundred six sequential mammographically detected breast cancers and 147 normal screening mammograms from 18 facilities were classified by mammographic density. BI-RADS 1 and 2 density cases were classified as nondense breasts; BI-RADS 3 and 4 density cases were classified as dense breasts. Cancers were classified as either masses or microcalcifications. All mammograms from the cancer and normal cases were evaluated by the CAD system. The sensitivity and false-positive rates from CAD in dense and nondense breasts were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: Overall, 809 (89%) of 906 cancer cases were detected by CAD; 455/505 (90%) cancers in nondense breasts and 354/401 (88%) cancers in dense breasts were detected. CAD sensitivity was not affected by breast density (p=0.38). Across both breast density categories, 280/296 (95%) microcalcification cases and 529/610 (87%) mass cases were detected. One hundred fourteen (93%) of the 122 microcalcifications in nondense breasts and 166 (95%) of 174 microcalcifications in dense breasts were detected, showing that CAD sensitivity to microcalcifications is not dependent on breast density (p=0.46). Three hundred forty-one (89%) of 383 masses in nondense breasts, and 188 (83%) of 227 masses in dense breasts were detected-that is, CAD sensitivity to masses is affected by breast density (p=0.03). There were more false-positive marks on dense versus nondense mammograms (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Breast density does not impact overall CAD detection of breast cancer. There is no statistically significant difference in breast cancer detection in dense and nondense breasts. However, the detection of breast cancer manifesting as masses is impacted by breast density. The false-positive rate is lower in nondense versus dense breasts. CAD may be particularly advantageous in patients with dense breasts, in which mammography is most challenging.     

The use of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening

Screening mammography is a powerful tool for reducing breast cancer mortality. Mammography can often detect clinically occult, early-stage breast cancer that is amenable to successful treatment. However, mammography is not a perfect test and has lower sensitivity in young women and in those with dense breasts. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to depict breast cancers that are occult to other forms of detection, including mammography. This has generated interest in the use of MRI for breast cancer screening. Although preliminary studies in highly selected populations show promise for the potential efficacy of breast cancer screening with MRI, there are many questions that should be addressed before this technique is offered to the general population.     

Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. CONCLUSION: In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests.     

Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors.

Findings by xeromammography and clinical examination were compared in 16,000 self-selected women aged 45-64 who participated in a voluntary breast cancer screening program. A total of 138 malignancies were detected: 108 (78%) by mammography and 78 (57%) by clinical examination. Mammography was more effective for large breasts, fatty breasts, and in older women. Conversely, clinical examination was more effective for small breasts, dense breasts, and retroareolar lesions. Clinical detection decreased strikingly for lesions with negative lymph nodes, in situ and microinvasive lesions, deeply situated lesions, and lesions where microcalcifications were the sole mammographic finding.     

Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in Fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of mammography and MRI in the detection of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety patients with planned mastectomies (nine bilateral) underwent mammography and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MRI. Off-site reviewers aware of the entry criterion (planned mastectomy) evaluated both examinations for the presence of malignant foci, recording the density pattern on mammography. The gold standard was pathologic examination of the whole excised breast (slice thickness, 5 mm). RESULTS: Of 99 breasts, pathologic findings revealed 52 unifocal, 29 multifocal, and 18 multicentric cancers for a total of 188 malignant foci (158 invasive and 30 in situ). Overall sensitivity was 66% (124/188) for mammography and 81% (152/188) for MRI (p < 0.001); 72% (113/158) and 89% (140/158) for invasive foci (p < 0.001); and 37% (11/30) and 40% (12/30) for in situ foci (p > 0.05, not significant), respectively. Mammography and MRI missed 64 and 36 malignant foci, respectively, with median diameters of 8 and 5 mm (p = 0.033) and an invasive-noninvasive ratio of 2.4:1 (45:19) and 1.0:1 (18:18) (p = 0.043), respectively. The overall positive predictive value (PPV) was 76% (124/164) for mammography and 68% (152/222) for MRI (not significant). In breasts with an almost entirely fatty pattern, sensitivity was 75% for mammography and 80% for MRI (not significant), and the PPV was 73% and 65% (not significant), respectively. In breasts with fibroglandular or dense pattern, the sensitivity was 60% and 81% (p < 0.001), and the PPV was 78% and 71% (not significant), respectively. CONCLUSION: MRI was more sensitive than mammography for the detection of multiple malignant foci in fibroglandular or dense breasts. Mammography missed larger and more invasive cancer foci than MRI. A relatively low PPV was a problem for both techniques.     

Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the sensitivity of the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system applied to full-field digital mammograms for detection of breast cancers in a screening group, with histologic findings as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study had institutional review board approval, and patient informed consent was waived. A commercially available CAD system was applied to the digital mammograms of 103 women (mean age, 51 years; range, 35-69 years) with 103 breast cancers detected with screening. Sensitivity values of the CAD system according to mammographic appearance, breast composition, and histologic findings were analyzed. Normal mammograms from 100 women (mean age, 54 years; age range, 35-75 years) with no mammographic and clinical abnormality during 2-year follow-up were used to determine false-positive CAD system marks. Differences between the cancer detection rates in fatty and dense breasts for the CAD system were compared by using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: The CAD system correctly marked 99 (96.1%) of 103 breast cancers. The CAD system marked all 44 breast cancers that manifested as microcalcifications only, all 23 breast cancers that manifested as a mass with microcalcifications, and 32 (89%) of 36 lesions that appeared as a mass only. The sensitivity of the CAD system in the fatty breast group was 95% (59 of 62) and in the dense breast group was 98% (40 of 41) (P = .537). The CAD system correctly marked all 31 lesions of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), all 22 lesions of invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS, the single invasive lobular carcinoma lesion, and 45 (92%) of 49 lesions of invasive ductal carcinoma. On normal mammograms, the mean number of false-positive marks per patient was 1.80 (range, 0-10 marks; median, 1 mark). CONCLUSION: The CAD system can correctly mark most (96.1%) asymptomatic breast cancers detected with digital mammographic screening, with acceptable false-positive marks (1.80 per patient).     

Inconclusive findings at mammography: the value of MR imaging

Summary Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the assessment of inconclusive findings at mammography, such as indeterminate focal or diffuse breast abnormalities, post-treatment breasts with extensive scarring, dense breasts, and findings suggesting multifocal or multicentric breast cancer. Material and Methods: 254 patients underwent mammography, sonography, and MRI of the breast. Dynamic MR imaging was done using a thin-section three-dimensional gradient-echo sequence (FLASH, TR = 11.8 ms; TE = 5 ms; flip angle = 25 °) which was applied in a dynamic fashion before and every 90 seconds after injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Diagnoses were confirmed at biopsy (n = 165) or by follow-up (n = 89). Results: Among various breast anomalies, the highest proportion of breast cancers was associated with dense breast tissue (27.8 %), architectural distortion (26.9 %), and irregular scars (15.8 %). Sensitivity of dynamic MR imaging was 93.7 %, and specificity was 83.3 %. As compared to mammography and sonography, MR detected 6 occult carcinomas, and showed additional malignant lesions in 19/63 women (30.2 %) with biopsy-proven breast cancer. Conclusion: MR imaging of the breast may provide valuable additional information in indeterminate breast anomalies. However, because of its inherent limitations, it should not replace core needle biopsy in all lesions which are amenable to biopsy. Because of its high sensitivity in the detection of invasive carcinomas in any type of breast tissue, MR imaging is considered the modality of choice in the evaluation of dense breasts in high-risk patients or in patients with clinical suspicion of occult breast cancer, and for preoperative tumor staging.      

Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors

PURPOSE: To evaluate common breast tumor prognostic characteristics, including estrogen receptor (ER) status, grade, size, and method of detection, in relationship to mammographic density. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 121 women who had negative results at both screening mammography and breast physical examination within 17 months before a diagnosis of breast cancer. Mammographic density was classified according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System patterns 1 through 4 (where 1 indicates a fatty breast and 4 indicates a dense breast). Axillary nodal status and tumor histologic ER status, histologic grade, size, stage, and method of detection (mammography alone, palpation alone, or both palpation and mammography) were analyzed by density category and tested for statistically significant differences across categories by using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (P <.05) by density category were found for the following variables: ER positivity (15 of 15 tumors in category 1 breasts, 32 of 41 tumors in category 2 breasts, 37 of 49 tumors in category 3 breasts, and eight of 16 tumors in category 4 breasts were ER positive), occurrence of grade 1 tumors (eight, 11, 19, and four tumors in category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4 breasts, respectively, were grade 1), mean tumor size (11.3, 13.0, 14.7, and 19.7 mm for category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4 breasts, respectively), detection with mammography alone (13, 31, 36, and four tumors in category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4 breasts, respectively, were detected with mammography alone), and occurrence of stage I tumors (10, 25, 28, and five tumors in category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4 breasts, respectively, were stage I). CONCLUSION: In women with negative results at clinical and mammographic screening within 17 months before breast tumor detection, subsequently diagnosed cancers tend to be ER negative, of higher grade, and larger in size in those with dense tissue patterns than in those with fat patterns.     

(99m)Tc sestamibi breast imaging for the examination of patients with dense and fatty breasts: multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of scintimammography as an adjunct to physical examination and mammography in the detection of breast cancer in women with dense and fatty breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 558 women were prospectively enrolled from 42 centers in North America. Images were interpreted by readers blinded to the subjects' clinical history, mammographic findings, and other test results. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification was used to describe breast density. Parenchymal patterns of "heterogeneously dense" and "extremely dense" were used to classify breasts as dense, whereas "almost entirely fat" and "numerous vague densities" defined fatty breasts. Between-group differences were evaluated with the 2 test for categorical variables and Student t test for continuous variables. Accuracy of scintimammography was assessed against the core laboratory histopathologic evaluation, the standard. The 95% CIs around point estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated with the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. RESULTS: The analyses were based on 580 breasts with an abnormality; 276 (48%) breasts were dense and 228 had a malignant lesion. Diagnostic properties for scintimammography of fatty versus dense breasts were, respectively, sensitivity, 72% versus 70%; specificity, 80% versus 78%; positive predictive value, 72% versus 67%; negative predictive value, 81% versus 81%; and accuracy, 77% versus 75% (all not significant). Scintimammography led to similar and significant changes in the posttest likelihood of cancer for both dense and fatty breasts. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of scintimammography is not affected by breast density.