中间乳腺X线检查评估对乳腺癌筛查方案的假阳性结果可能性的影响

目的在西班牙,100%的目标人群均被提供乳腺癌筛查服务且有时还要进行中间乳腺X线检查(IM)。本研究着重于分析IM的使用频率、被推荐使用的因素、对假阳性结果风险的影响以及检出率。方法本研究的数据来源于西班     

乳腺钼靶筛查：种族能影响病人为早期诊断乳腺癌而接受的较高回访吗？

目的 前瞻性地调查服务欠佳地区及少数民族的女性对于筛检性乳腺钼靶片的理解,对回访及早期诊断的愿望及得到1次假阳性结果后是否愿意继续一年1次的筛检性乳腺钼靶片检查。材料与方法 本研究遵从HIPAA,经机构审查委员会批准,共有1011例女性接受乳腺钼靶检查。     

不典型乳腺癌的X线诊断(附18例报告)

目的　为进一步提高不典型乳腺癌的诊断水平。方法　作者总结了经手术病理证实 18例不典型乳腺癌的X线表现。结果　 18例中 ,5例呈小灶致密影 ,6例出现局部结构紊乱 ,7例显示为星芒征。结论　对上述三种特殊表现的认识 ,在不典型乳腺癌的诊断中具有重要价值。     

超声、钼靶X线联合MRI在乳腺癌术前评价中的应用

目的 探讨超声、钼靶X线联合MRI在乳腺癌术前评价中的作用.资料与方法 经超声、钼靶X线和MRI检查后拟诊为乳腺癌的58例患者,均经手术或穿刺病理证实,比较三种检查方法对癌灶检出率、癌灶大小符合率、淋巴结转移情况及手术方式的影响.结果 钼靶X线对癌灶的检出率及对浸润性导管癌(IDC)和浸润性小叶癌(LDC)的检出率最低(P＜0.05);超声、钼靶X线和MRI联合对癌灶的检出率和对导管内原位癌(DCIS)的检出率均高于超声(P＜ 0.05),对转移淋巴结的检出率高于钼靶X线、MRI(P＜0.05);癌灶影像学测值与病理测值的符合度:MRI最高,超声次之,钼靶X线最低(P=0.000).对手术方案的影响:拟行保乳术25例,最终实施16例,超声、钼靶X线、MRI和术中病理分别使2例(2/25,8.0％)、1例(1/25,4.0％)、5例(5/25,20.0％)、1例( 1/25,4.0％)改行根治术.结论 超声、钼靶X线联合MRI可进一步确诊乳腺癌,并对手术方案的确立提供更详细准确的依据.     

乳腺癌钼靶X线影像与保乳外科手术关系的探讨

目的分析乳腺钼靶X线表现,探讨其与保乳外科手术的关系。方法回顾分析38例乳腺癌所有病例术前及术后放射治疗后双侧乳腺头尾位和内外斜位图像,获取术中肿瘤标本组织做钼靶摄影。根据影像学不同的表现,采用不同的手术方式。术后常规病理检查。结果 38例乳腺癌,21例乳腺钼靶影像学表现符合保乳手术适应证,X线表现为:单发肿瘤直径≤3 cm,单簇细小钙化,单发肿瘤直径<3 cm加单簇细小钙化,行保乳手术治疗。乳腺钼靶影像学还可以有效评价保乳术放射治疗后乳腺的变化及有无复发。结论乳腺外科保乳的进步,依赖于影像学的进步,依赖于乳腺钼靶的检查。     

乳腺癌钼靶X线表现与P53基因的关系

目的: 探讨乳腺癌钼靶X线表现与P53癌基因表达之间的关系.材料和方法: 将71例乳腺癌X线征象中钙化、毛刺、病变密度、是否同时合并乳腺囊性增生症与经免疫组织化学染色测定P53基因的表达进行对照研究.结果: 71例乳腺癌中,钙化40例,占56.3%;毛刺征23例,占32.4%;病变区表现为高密度38例,占53.5%;乳腺癌同时合并乳腺囊性增生症46例,占64.8%.P53基因表达阳性40例,占56.3%.结论: 乳腺癌钼靶X线征象在一定程度上反映了P53基因表达状态.     

0～Ⅰ期乳腺癌28例的临床与影像特点

目的 通过对0～Ⅰ期(早期)乳腺癌病例的钼靶X线、超声及临床查体特点的分析,探讨乳腺癌的早期发现方法 .方法 经手术病理证实的28例0～Ⅰ期乳腺癌术前均行临床查体、双侧钼靶X线摄片和全乳腺超声扫描.结果 临床查体对0～Ⅰ期早期乳腺癌的诊断符合率为57.1 %(16/28),超声、钼靶X线摄片可达85.7%(24/28)和 89.3%(25/28).早期乳腺癌临床表现仍以乳腺内肿块为主,占诊断阳性病例的87.5%(14/16),X线摄片特点以结节肿块影为主,占56%(14/25),低回声实性占位为早期乳腺癌主要的超声特点,所占比例为占75%(18/24).8例0期乳腺癌中,X线摄片诊断符合率为100.0%(8/8),超声和临床查体均为50%(4/8),以钼靶摄片上的恶性钙化为其主要表现.超声诊断Ⅰ期乳腺癌的符合率为100.0%(20/20),X线摄片、临床查体分别为85.0%(17/20)和 40%(8/20),超声检查对于年轻、致密性腺体具有优势.结论 早期乳腺癌无论在临床表现、影像学检查均可出现不典型特征,乳腺X线摄片、超声及临床查体是早期发现乳腺癌的重要手段,诊断时又各有疏漏,应综合考虑,互相弥补,当其中一项高度疑为乳腺癌时,均应予以重视,及时明确诊断.     

乳腺癌钼靶X线与超声诊断的对比研究

目的 比较钼靶X线与超声对乳腺癌的诊断价值.方法 经手术及病理证实同时行钼靶X线与超声检查的乳腺癌病例40例.钼靶X线采用常规摄片方法摄片;超声探头频率10 MHz,分别在2种影像下对乳腺癌进行分析、诊断,比较二者诊断结果的差异.结果 40例乳腺癌患者中,包括浸润性导管癌29例,导管内癌5例,小叶癌4例,黏液腺癌1例,炎性乳癌1例,X线诊断正确34例,超声诊断正确29例(x2=13.83,P＜0.05).结论 对乳腺癌的检出,钼靶X线较超声有优势.     

超声弹性成像与乳腺钼靶摄影对乳腺癌诊断的对比研究

目的:研究超声弹性成像与钼靶摄影对乳腺癌的诊断价值。方法:回顾性分析110个乳腺肿物,术前行超声弹性成像及乳腺钼靶摄影检查,以病理结果对照分析,计算两种方法诊断乳腺疾病的敏感性、特异性、准确性。结果:超声弹性成像诊断结节的敏感性、特异性、准确性分别是79.41%、78.94%、79.10%。乳腺钼靶摄影诊断结节的敏感性、特异性、准确性分别是68.75%、76.92%、74.55%,超声弹性成像与乳腺钼靶摄影诊断结果有统计学差异(P<0.01)。结论:超声弹性成像作为辅助诊断的模式之一,需结合钼靶摄影检查,有助于提高乳腺检查的准确性。     

常规超声结合弹性成像对乳腺癌的诊断价值

目的:探讨常规超声结合弹性成像(ultrasonic elastography,UE)对乳腺癌诊断的临床价值。方法:502例患者,共567个肿块纳入本研究,分为良性组及恶性组,对比2组患者间临床资料差异有无统计学意义。结果:常规超声联合UE诊断乳腺癌的敏感性为93.8%,特异性为88.1%,准确性为90.3%,敏感性和准确性均高于常规超声,差异有统计学意义(χ2=369.5,P<0.001),同时也高于单项UE(χ2=332.2,P<0.001)。结论:在规范评分指标的前提下常规超声联合UE对鉴别乳腺良恶性肿块具有较高的临床应用价值,可提高诊断乳腺癌的敏感性和准确性,对乳腺癌的早期诊断及术前分期具有重要参考价值。     

Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in population-based breast cancer screening programmes.

Methods

We evaluated 1,440,384 single-read screening mammograms, corresponding to 471,112 women aged 45?C69?years participating in four Spanish programmes between 1990 and 2006. The mammograms were interpreted by 72 radiologists.

Results

The overall percentage of false-positive results was 5.85% and that for false-positives resulting in an invasive procedure was 0.38%. Both the risk of false-positives overall and of false-positives leading to an invasive procedure significantly decreased (p?14,999 mammograms with respect to the reference category (<500). The risk of both categories of false-positives was also significantly reduced (p?Conclusion Radiologist experience is a determining factor in the risk of a false-positive result in breast cancer screening.     

采用数字乳腺摄影后假阳性结果减低:西班牙乳腺癌人群的4种筛查程序分析

目的评价引入数字乳腺摄影后,对西班牙乳腺癌人群4种筛查程序中大样本受检妇女召回率、检出率、假阳性率与有创处理率的影响。材料与方法研究由伦理委员会     

Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes

Objectives  

Breast cancer screening is offered to 100% of the target population in Spain and intermediate mammograms (IMs) are sometimes indicated. This study was aimed at analysing the frequency of IMs, the factors determining their recommendation, and their impact on the risk of false–positive results and the detection rate.     

Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes

PURPOSE: To examine retrospectively the relationship between radiologist screening program reading volumes and interpretation results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This research project was reviewed by the University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board. Informed patient consent was not required. Data were requested from Canadian provincial screening programs for the period 1988-2000. Cancer detection rates, abnormal interpretation rates, and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for individual radiologists in those programs. Multivariate Poisson mixed regression models were used to examine the effect of patient age, screening examination sequence (first or subsequent screening examination), province, radiologist reading volume, and interradiologist differences on cancer detection rate, abnormal interpretation rate, and PPV. RESULTS: The results of the interpretation of 1406678 screening mammograms by 304 radiologists from seven provincial programs were analyzed. Cancer detection rate, abnormal interpretation rate, and PPV all varied according to age of woman screened and screening sequence and across the sample of radiologists. None of the rates varied by province. Neither the cancer detection rate nor the abnormal interpretation rate varied by reading volume, but the average PPV was increased by 34% for volumes over 2000 mammograms versus volumes of 480-699 mammograms per year. There was no evidence that the magnitude of variability around the average, for radiologists reading the same volume of mammograms, varied across different volume groups for any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Cancer detection did not vary with reading volume. The average PPV for individual radiologists increased as reading volume rose up to 2000 mammograms per year; it stabilized at higher volumes.     

The cumulative risk of false-positive screening results across screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program

Background

Recall for assessment in mammographic screening entails an inevitable number of false-positive screening results. This study aimed to investigate the variation in the cumulative risk of a false positive screening result and the positive predictive value across the screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Methods

We studied 618,636 women aged 50–69 years who underwent 2,090,575 screening exams (1996–2010. Recall rate, positive predictive value, rate of screen-detected cancer, and the cumulative risk of a false positive screening result, without and with invasive procedures across the screening centres were calculated. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the probability of a false positive screening result and to compute the cumulative false-positive risk for up to ten biennial screening examinations.

Results

The cumulative risk of a false-positive screening exam varied from 10.7% (95% CI: 9.4–12.0%) to 41.5% (95% CI: 34.1–48.9%) across screening centres, with a highest to lowest ratio of 3.9 (95% CI: 3.7–4.0). The highest to lowest ratio for the cumulative risk of undergoing an invasive procedure with a benign outcome was 4.3 (95% CI: 4.0–4.6). The positive predictive value of recall varied between 12.0% (95% CI: 11.0–12.9%) and 19.9% (95% CI: 18.3–21.5%), with a highest to lowest ratio of 1.7 (95% CI: 1.5–1.9).

Conclusions

A substantial variation in the performance measures across the screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program was identified, despite of similar administration, procedures, and quality assurance requirements. Differences in the readers’ performance is probably of influence for the variability. This results underscore the importance of continuous surveillance of the screening centres and the radiologists in order to sustain and improve the performance and effectiveness of screening programs.     

Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false-positive findings

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of breast density and age on screening mammograms with false-positive findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample was taken from the Washington State Mammography Tumor Registry, which links data from participating radiologists with the Puget Sound Cancer Surveillance System and the Washington State Cancer Registry. Participants (n = 73,247) were women 35 years old and older who underwent screening mammography for which an assessment and a four-category density rating were coded. A total of 46,340 mammograms were sampled to avoid interpreter bias. In this study of false-positive mammograms, only women with no diagnosis of breast cancer within 12 months of the index mammogram were included. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios of a false-positive mammogram being associated with each category of breast density or age, adjusting for the other factor as a covariate. RESULTS: After controlling for breast density, we found that the risk of a false-positive mammogram was not affected by age (p = 27). However, the trend of increasing risk of a false-positive mammogram with increasing breast density was highly significant (p < .001). Women with extremely dense breast tissue were almost two times more likely to have a false-positive mammogram than were women with fatty breast tissue. This effect persisted after controlling for age. CONCLUSION: Breast density, not age, is an important factor when predicting risk of a false-positive mammogram. Breast density should be considered when educating individual women on the risks and benefits of screening mammography.     

Long-term risk of false-positive screening results and subsequent biopsy as a function of mammography use

PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the long-term risk of false-positive mammographic assessments and to evaluate the effect of screening regularity on the risk of false-positive events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived. Retrospective analysis was performed for the occurrence of false-positive assessments among 83,511 women who underwent 314,185 mammographic examinations from January 1, 1985, to February 19, 2002. Data were collected from a database that had been assembled prospectively. Two categories of false-positive events were examined: biopsies that did not reveal cancer and false-positive mammographic assessments. Rates of false-positive events were compared by using a chi2 analysis, and 95% confidence limits were calculated. Because comparisons of multiple pairs were considered, all P values that demonstrated statistical significance exceeded the requirement of the Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: While the overall rates of biopsies that did not reveal cancer and of false-positive mammographic assessments were similar to those found in other studies, most of the burden of false-positive events was borne by women who underwent intermittent screening. Long-term rates of false-positive events were lower among women who underwent regular screening than among those who underwent intermittent screening. In the 5-year group, 2.9% of women who underwent five mammographic examinations over the next 5 years had biopsy results that did not reveal cancer, whereas 4.6% of women who underwent three mammographic examinations over the next 5 years had biopsy results that did not reveal cancer. For women who underwent regular screening, the risk of undergoing biopsies that did not reveal cancer declined over time to 0.25% per year after several years of screening, a value that is lower than the risk of these events among women who did not undergo screening. The rate of false-positive mammographic assessments was also lower for women who underwent regular screening than for those who underwent intermittent screening. CONCLUSION: Prompt annual attendance for mammographic screening reduces the occurrence of false-positive mammographic results.     

Modern radiation techniques in early stage breast cancer for the breast radiologist

Partial breast irradiation (PBI) and ultra-hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (uWBI) are contemporary alternatives to conventional and standard hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI), which shorten treatment from 3 to 6 weeks to 1–2 weeks for select patients. PBI and accelerated PBI (APBI) can be delivered with external beam radiation (3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)), intraoperative radiation (IORT), or brachytherapy. These new radiation techniques offer the advantage of convenience and lower cost, which ultimately improves access to care. Globally, the COVID 19 pandemic has accelerated APBI/PBI and ultra-hypofractionated regimens into routine practice for carefully selected patients. Recent long-term data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated these techniques are safe and effective in suitable patients demonstrating equivalent or improved local recurrence, acute/late toxicity, and cosmesis. PBI and APBI should be limited to low risk unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ with tumor size < 2 cm, clear margins (≥2 mm), ER+, and negative nodes. Based on the results from UK Fast-Forward and UK FAST ultra-hypofractionated breast radiation can be safely employed for early stage node negative patients, but is not yet considered an international standard of care. In this review, authors will appraise recent data for these shorter course radiation treatment regimens, as well as, considerations for breast radiologists including surveillance imaging and radiographic findings.