Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut public act 09-41

Radiology

Volumn 265, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 59-69

  Hooley, Regina J ^a   Greenberg, Kathryn L ^a   Stackhouse, Rebecca M ^a   Geisel, Jaime L ^a   Butler, Reni S ^a   Philpotts, Liane E ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASPIRATION BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICARE; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUMOR VOLUME; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONNECTICUT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84866604203     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120621     Document Type: Article

References (32)

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(1):165-175.
2. 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(13):1081-1087. (Pubitemid 30616482)
3. Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167(5):1261-1265. (Pubitemid 26376247)
4. Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgård C, Janzon L, Linell F. Interval carcinomas in the MalmöMammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159(2):287-294.
5. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 2004;230(1):29-41. (Pubitemid 37549780)
6. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dünser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21(4):325-336.
7. 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(18):2151-2163. (Pubitemid 351679706)
8. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(1):177-182. (Pubitemid 36741481)
9. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76(4):626-630.
10. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 2008;44(4):539-544.
11. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(6):1675-1679. (Pubitemid 36687107)
12. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221(3):641-649. (Pubitemid 33101754)
13. Kopans DB, Monsees B, Feig SA. Screening for cancer: when is it valid? - lessons from the mammography experience. Radiology 2003;229(2):319-327. (Pubitemid 37310813)
14. Kopans DB. Sonography should not be used for breast cancer screening until its efficacy has been proven scientifically. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182(2):489-491. (Pubitemid 38116598)
15. National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/. Updated May 16, 2011. Accessed November 10, 2011.
16. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196(1):123-134.
17. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS-ultrasound. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
18. Rinaldi P, Ierardi C, Costantini M, et al. Cystic breast lesions: sonographic findings and clinical management. J Ultrasound Med 2010;29(11):1617-1626.
19. National Government Services. National Government Services-Medicare Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Chicago, Ill: National Government Services, 1996-2012. http://www.ngsmedicare.com/wps/portal/ngsmedicare. Accessed February 23, 2012.
20. Hooley RJ, Andrejeva L, Scoutt LM. Breast cancer screening and problem solving using mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Q 2011;27(1):23-47.
21. Kopans D. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007.
22. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42(5):845-851, vi. (Pubitemid 39165067)
23. Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H, Zhang Z. Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5):931-987.
24. 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(1):191-199.
25. Venta LA, Kim JP, Pelloski CE, Morrow M. Management of complex breast cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(5):1331-1336. (Pubitemid 29494016)
26. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(4):921-927. (Pubitemid 29451285)
27. Berg WA, Campassi CI, Ioffe OB. Cystic lesions of the breast: sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 2003;227(1):183-191. (Pubitemid 36384198)
28. Chang YW, Kwon KH, Goo DE, Choi DL, Lee HK, Yang SB. Sonographic differentiation of benign and malignant cystic lesions of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(1):47-53. (Pubitemid 46080075)
29. Daly CP, Bailey JE, Klein KA, Helvie MA. Complicated breast cysts on sonography: is aspiration necessary to exclude malignancy?. Acad Radiol 2008;15(5):610-617. (Pubitemid 351515894)
30. Mainiero MB, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, et al. Characterization of breast masses with sonography: can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred?. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24(2):161-167.
31. Loving VA, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Targeted ultrasound in women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms: outcomes analyses and management implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(6):1472-1477.
32. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?. Radiology 2007;244(1):87-93. (Pubitemid 46981961)