Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 539-544

  Corsetti, Vittorio ^a   Houssami, Nehmat ^b,c   Ferrari, Aurora ^a   Ghirardi, Marco ^a   Bellarosa, Sergio ^a   Angelini, Osvaldo ^a   Bani, Claudio ^a   Sardo, Pasquale ^a   Remida, Giuseppe ^a   Galligioni, Enzo ^a   Ciatto, Stefano ^c  

^a Calcinato   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c CANCER RESEARCH AND PREVENTION INSTITUTE ISPO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Dense breast; Interval cancers; Screening; Ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 40449091690     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (19)

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 180 (2003) 1675-1679
2. Mandelson M.T., Oestreicher N., Porter P.L., et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval and screen detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (2000) 1081-1087
3. van Gils C.H., Otten J.D., Verbeek A.L., Hendriks J.H., and Holland R. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. J Epidemiol Commun Health 52 (1998) 267-271
4. Crystal P., Strano S.D., Shcharynski S., and Koretz M.J. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol 181 (2003) 177-182
5. Ciatto S., Visioli C., Paci E., and Zappa M. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer 90 (2004) 393-396
6. Houssami N., Ciatto S., Irwig L., Simpson J.M., and Macaskill P. The comparative sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms: an age-specific analysis. Breast 11 (2002) 125-130
7. Gordon P.B., and Goldenberg S.L. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer 76 (1995) 626-630
8. Kolb T.M., Lichy J., and Newhouse J.H. 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 225 (2002) 165-175
9. Buchberger W., DeKoekkoek-Doll P., Springer P., Obrist P., and Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol 173 (1999) 921-927
10. Buchberger W., Niehoff A., Obrist P., DeKoekkoek-Doll P., and Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 21 (2000) 325-336
11. Kaplan S.S. Clinical utility of bilateral whole breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221 (2001) 641-649
12. Berg W.A. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. Am J Roentgenol 180 (2003) 1225-1228
13. Irwig L., Houssami N., and van Vliet C. New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer 90 (2004) 2118-2122
14. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS™). 3rd ed. Reston (VA): © American College of Radiology; 1998.
15. Houssami N., and Irwig L. Likelihood ratios for clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and fine needle biopsy in women with breast problems. Breast 7 (1998) 85-89
16. Ciatto S., Houssami N., Ambrogetti D., et al. Accuracy and underestimation of malignancy of breast core needle biopsy: the Florence experience of over 4,000 consecutive biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101 (2007) 291-297
17. Ciatto S., Catarzi S., Lamberini M.P., et al. Interval breast cancers in screening: The effect of mammography review method on classification. Breast 16 (2007) 646-652
18. Irwig L., Houssami N., Armstrong B., and Glasziou P. How should we evaluate new screening tests for breast cancer?. Br Med J 332 (2006) 678-679
19. Taylor R., Supramaniam R., Rickard M., et al. Interval breast cancers in New South Wales, Australia, and comparisons with trials and other mammographic screening programmes. J Med Screen 9 (2002) 20-25