Supplementary breast Ultrasound screening in Asian women with negative but Dense mammograms-A pilot study

Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore

Volumn 41, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 432-439

  Leong, Lester C H ^a   Gogna, Apoorva ^a   Pant, Rita ^b   Ng, Fook Cheong ^a   Sim, Llewellyn S J ^a  

^a SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

^b KING FAISAL SPECIALIST HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

Asian; Breast; Dense; Screening; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASIAN; BIOPSY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PILOT STUDY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84868519790     PISSN: 03044602     EISSN: 29724066     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP 3rd, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:141-69.
2. Albert US, Schulz KD, German Association of the Scientifi c Medical Societies (AWMF), German Agency for Quality in Medicine (AeZQ). Short version of the Guideline: Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Germany. An evidence-, consensus-and outcome-based guideline according to the German Association of the Scientifi c Medical Societies (AWMF) and the German Agency for Quality in Medicine (AeZQ). J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004;130:527-36.
3. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of breast cancer in women: a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: SIGN, 2005. SIGN Publication No. 84.
4. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009;7:1060-96.
5. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-7.
6. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004;233:830-49.
7. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density and family history on the sensitivity of fi rst screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-8.
8. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination and breast US and evaluation of the factors that infl uence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225:165-75.
9. McCormack V, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1159-69.
10. Boyd N, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Eng J Med 2007;356:227-36.
11. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76:626-30.
12. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dünser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classifi cation with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:325-36.
13. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast ultrasound in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-49
14. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:177-82.
15. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D'Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1675-9.
16. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin N Am 2004;42:841-55.
17. Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bergonzini R, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 2006;111:440-8.
18. American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998.
19. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS-Ultrasound, 1st ed. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS atlas), 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
20. Pelikan S, Moskowitz M. Effects of lead time, length bias, and false-negative assurance on screening for breast cancer. Cancer 1993;71:1998-2005.
21. Moskowitz M. Retrospective reviews of breast cancer screening: what do we really learn from them? Radiology 1996;199:615-20.
22. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin N Am 2000;38:625-51.
23. Zorzi M, Guzzinati S, Puliti D, Paci E; IMPACT working group. Early diagnosis, not differential treatment, explains better survival in service screening. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2728-34.
24. Paci E, Giorgi D, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V, Zappa M, Crocetti E, et al. Assessment of the early impact of the population-based breast cancer screening programme in Florence (Italy) using mortality and surrogate measures. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:568-73.
25. Ernst MF, Voogd AC, Coebergh JW, Roukema JA. Breast carcinoma diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis before and after the introduction of mass mammographic screening. Cancer 2004;100:1337-44.
26. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, Yen MF, Warwick J, Smith RA, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening: cluster randomisation and end point evaluation. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1196-8.
27. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784-92.
28. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, Day NE, Smith RA, Chen HH, et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1755-60.
29. Alagaratnam TT, Wong J. Limitations of mammography in Chinese females. Clin Radiol 1985;36:175-7.
30. El-Bastawissi AY, White E, Mandelson MT, Taplin S. Variation in mammographic breast density by race. Ann Epidemiol 2001;11:257-63.
31. Maskarinec G, Meng L, Ursin G. Ethnic differences in mammographic densities. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:959-65.
32. Maskarinec G, Nagata C, Shimizu H, Kashiki Y. Comparison of mammographic densities and their determinants in women from Japan and Hawaii. Int J Cancer 2002;102:29-33.
33. Habel LA, Capra AM, Oestreicher N, Greendale GA, Cauley JA, Bromberger J, et al. Mammographic density in a multiethnic cohort. Menopause 2007;14:891-9.
34. del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, Moy B, Moore RH, Goss PE, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1147-50.
35. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 2004;230:29-41.
36. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:75-89.
37. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292:1317-25.
38. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8469-76.
39. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, Verdecchia A, Santaquilani M, Musumeci R, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 2007;242:698-715.
40. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, Pisano ED, Ascher SM, Weatherall PT, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007;244:381-8.
41. Hrung JM, Sonnad SS, Schwartz JS, Langlotz CP. Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 1999;6:387-97.
42. Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P, Cawson JN, Morris I, Walleser S, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:1905-17.
43. Jara-Lazaro AR, Thilagaratnam S, Tan PH. Breast cancer in Singapore: some perspectives. Breast Cancer 2010;17:23-8.
44. Duffy SW, Gabe R. What should the detection rates of cancers be in breast screening programmes? Br J Cancer 2005;92:597-600.
45. Wang SC. The Singapore National Breast Screening Programme: principles and implementation. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2003;32:466-76.
46. Shin HR, Joubert C, Boniol M, Hery C, Ahn SH, Won YJ, et al. Recent trends and patterns in breast cancer incidence among Eastern and Southeastern Asian women. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21:1777-85.
47. Leong SP, Shen ZZ, Liu TJ, Agarwal G, Tajima T, Paik NS, et al. Is breast cancer the same disease in Asian and Western countries? World J Surg 2010;34:2308-24.
48. Seow A, Koh WP, Chia KS, Shi LM, Lee HP, Shanmugaratnam K. Trends in cancer incidence in Singapore 1968-2002, Singapore Cancer Registry, report no.6, 2004.
49. Trends in cancer incidence in Singapore 1968-2007, Singapore Cancer Registry, report no.7, 2010.
50. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-63.
51. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus fi lm mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-83.
52. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-fi lm versus full-fi eld digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and fi nal results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007;244:708-17.
53. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, et al. Full-fi eld digital versus screen-fi lm mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:860-6.
54. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P. Full-fi eld digital mammography compared to screen fi lm mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 2008;18:183-91.
55. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010;20:734-42.
56. Thurfjell EL, Lindgren JA. Population-based mammography screening in Swedish clinical practice: prevalence and incidence screening in Uppsala County. Radiology 1994;193:351-7.
57. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000;215:563-7.
58. Sohlich RE, Sickles EA, Burnside ES, Dee KE. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:681-6.
59. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1225-8.