Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Supplementary Screening Sonography in Mammographically Dense Breast: Pros and Cons

  • Youk, Ji-Hyun (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Eun-Kyung (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2010.05.27
  • Accepted : 2010.07.29
  • Published : 2010.12.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Sonography is an attractive supplement to mammography in breast cancer screening because it is relatively inexpensive, requires no contrast-medium injection, is well tolerated by patients, and is widely available for equipment as compared with MRI. Sonography has been especially valuable for women with mammographically dense breast because it has consistently been able to detect a substantial number of cancers at an early stage. Despite these findings, breast sonography has known limitations as a screening tool; operator-dependence, the shortage of skilled operators, the inability to detect microcalcifications, and substantially higher false-positive rates than mammography. Further study of screening sonography is still ongoing and is expected to help establish the role of screening sonography.

Keywords

References

  1. Berg WA. Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:895-906 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2007.06.001
  2. 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;53:141-169 https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.53.3.141
  3. Houssami N, Lord SJ, Ciatto S. Breast cancer screening: emerging role of new imaging techniques as adjuncts to mammography. Med J Aust 2009;190:493-497
  4. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1225-1228 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801225
  5. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998;207:191-199
  6. Ciatto S, Visioli C, Paci E, Zappa M. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer 2004;90:393-396 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601548
  7. 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;92:1081-1087 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081
  8. 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;225:165-175 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
  9. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-175 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
  10. Kolb TM. Breast US for screening diagnosing, and staging breast cancer: issues and controversies. In: Karellas A, ed. RSNA Categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics: advances in breast imaging-physics, technology, and clinical applications. Oakbrook, IL: Radiological Society of North America, 2004:247-257
  11. Feig SA. Current status of screening US. In: Feig SA, ed. 2005 Syllabus: categorical course in diagnostic radiology-breast imaging. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America, 2005:143-154
  12. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76:626-630 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19950815)76:4<626::AID-CNCR2820760413>3.0.CO;2-Z
  13. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlie`re 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;180:1675-1679 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.6.1801675
  14. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-649 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2213010364
  15. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, 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;44:539-544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.01.009
  16. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, 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. BMC Cancer 2009;9:335 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-335
  17. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:845-851 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2004.04.003
  18. Stavros AT. Breast anatomy: the basis for understanding sonography. In: McAllister L, Donnellan K, Martin SP, Rothschild R, eds. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004:56-108
  19. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm-Ve′lez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-2163 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.18.2151
  20. Bevers TB. Ultrasound for the screening of breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 2008;10:527-528 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-008-0079-7
  21. Tabar L, Gad A, Parsons WC, Neeland DB. Mammographic appearances of in situ carcinomas. In: Silverstein MJ, Recht A, Lagios MD, eds. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002:87-104
  22. Merritt CR. Future directions in breast ultrasonography. Semin Breast Dis 1999;2:89-96
  23. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:941-948 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800941
  24. Gordon PB. Ultrasound for breast cancer screening and staging. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40:431-441 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-8389(01)00014-8
  25. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006;241:355-365 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2412051710
  26. Kuhl CK. The "coming of age" of nonmammographic screening for breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2203-2205 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.18.2203
  27. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:390- 399 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1706
  28. Philpotts LE, Smith RA. Screening for breast cancer. Semin Roentgenol 2003;38:19-33 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0037-198X(03)00004-X
  29. 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;20:734-742 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1588-y
  30. Bassett LW, Jackson VP, Fu KL, Fu YS. The medical audit. In: Ross A, Pontee E, eds. Diagnosis of diseases of the breast, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders, 2005:135-148
  31. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:325-336 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-2171(00)90027-1
  32. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:177-182 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.1.1810177

Cited by

  1. Commentary on: Incidental Breast Cancers Identified in a One-Stop Symptomatic Breast Clinic vol.14, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2011.14.2.165
  2. Breast ultrasonographic and histopathological characteristics without any mammographic abnormalities. vol.42, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyr197
  3. Mammography and Ultrasonography Reports Compared with Tissue Diagnosis - An Evidence Based Study in Iran, 2010 vol.13, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.5.1907
  4. Mammographic density in asymptomatic menopausal women: correlation with clinical and sonographic findings vol.45, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-39842012000300006
  5. Earlier Detection of Breast Cancer with Ultrasound Molecular Imaging in a Transgenic Mouse Model vol.73, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-3391
  6. Computer-aided detection system for masses in automated whole breast ultrasonography: development and evaluation of the effectiveness vol.33, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.13023
  7. Clinician-performed ultrasound in hemodynamic and cardiac assessment: a synopsis of current indications and limitations vol.41, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-014-0492-6
  8. Diagnostic Yield of Fine-Needle Aspiration for Axillary Lymph Nodes During Screening Breast Ultrasound vol.32, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/ruq.0000000000000236
  9. Mammographic Breast Density Evaluation in Korean Women Using Fully Automated Volumetric Assessment vol.31, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.3.457
  10. Differential diagnosis of breast masses in South Korean premenopausal women using diffuse optical spectroscopic imaging vol.21, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jbo.21.7.074001
  11. Breast ultrasonography for detection of metachronous ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence vol.57, pp.10, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115618549
  12. Contrast enhanced dual energy spectral mammogram, an emerging addendum in breast imaging vol.89, pp.1067, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150609
  13. Role of elastography for downgrading BI-RADS category 4a breast lesions according to risk factors vol.60, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185118780901
  14. Interobserver agreement in breast ultrasound categorization in the Mammography and Ultrasonography Study for Breast Cancer Screening Effectiveness (MUST-BE) trial: results of a preliminary study vol.38, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.18012
  15. Analysis of Tumor Size between Imaging of Preoperative Ultrasound, MRI and Pathologic Measurements in Early Breast Carcinoma vol.8, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14449/jbd.2020.8.1.19