Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment?

ObjectiveTo assess the positive predictive values of incremental breast cancer detection (PPV1) in relation to the mammographic breast density and of performed biopsies (PPV3) resulting from supplemental bilateral physician-performed whole-breast ultrasound (US) at recall of a population-based digital mammography screening programme.MethodsA total of 2,803 recalled screening participants (50–69 years), who had additional bilateral US with prospectively completed documentation [grading of breast density (ACR 1–4), biopsy recommendation related to US and mammography], were included.ResultsThe PPV1 of supplemental cancer detection only by US was 0.21 % (6/2,803) compared to 13.8 % (386/2,803) by mammography. The PPV1 of US-only cancer detection was 0 %, 0.16 % (2/1,220), 0.22 % (3/1,374) and 1.06 % (1/94) for women with breast density of ACR 1, ACR 2, ACR 3 and ACR 4, respectively. The PPV3 of US-only lesion detection was 33.3 % (9/27) compared to 38.0 % (405/1,066) by mammography. The proportion of invasive cancers no larger than 10 mm was 37.5 % (3/8) for US-only detection compared to 38.4 % (113/294) for mammographic detection.ConclusionBilateral ultrasound at recall, in addition to the assessment of screen-detected mammographic abnormalities, resulted in a low PPV of incremental cancer detection only by US, without a disproportional increase of false-positive biopsies.Key Points• Bilateral breast ultrasound was assessed in women recalled following digital mammography screening.• Overall breast cancer detection rate reached the desired level of European guidelines.• Additional ultrasound-only cancer detection had a low positive predictive value (0.21 %).• Ultrasound did detect additional unexpected breast cancers in breasts graded ACR 2–4.• Bilateral breast ultrasound offers little or only marginal benefit in routine screening.

[1]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[2]  Andrew J Evans,et al.  Influence of mammographic parenchymal pattern in screening-detected and interval invasive breast cancers on pathologic features, mammographic features, and patient survival. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  R. Spence,et al.  Ultrasound is a useful adjunct to mammography in the assessment of breast tumours in all patients , 2009, International journal of clinical practice.

[4]  C. Merritt.  Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer , 2009 .

[5]  W. Buchberger,et al.  Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. , 2000, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[6]  Enzo Galligioni,et al.  Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[7]  Consumer Protection,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[8]  Seema A Khan,et al.  NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. , 2009, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[9]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  Anne M Kavanagh,et al.  Using Mammographic Density to Improve Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes , 2008, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[11]  Mark A. Helvie,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. , 2006, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[12]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. , 2004, Radiology.

[13]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Minority report – false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis , 2007, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[14]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2009, Annals of internal medicine.

[15]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  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. , 2002, Radiology.

[16]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[17]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Enzo Galligioni,et al.  Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up. , 2011, European journal of cancer.

[19]  Stuart S Kaplan,et al.  Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. , 2001, Radiology.

[20]  U. Bick,et al.  [Consensus Meeting of Course Directors in Breast Imaging, 9 May 2009, in Frankfurt am Main - Topic: Masses]. , 2010, RöFo. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren (Print).

[21]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2009, Annals of internal medicine.

[22]  Xi Lin,et al.  Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[23]  Baudouin Maldague,et al.  Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  Eugenio Paci,et al.  A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries , 2010, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[25]  Pavel Crystal,et al.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  R. Schulz-Wendtland,et al.  2008 update of the guideline: early detection of breast cancer in Germany , 2009, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[27]  Markus Hahn,et al.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review , 2009, BMC Cancer.