Radiologist-performed hand-held ultrasound screening at average risk of breast cancer: results from a single health screening center

Abstract

Background

Ultrasound (US) screening is not currently recommended as a routine screening modality in the general population of average risk. The cancer detection yield and positive predictive value in an average risk general population who undergo breast screening by experienced radiologists is unclear.

Purpose

To determine the performance of screening breast US in women at an average risk for breast cancer undergoing breast screening by experienced radiologists.

Material and Methods

This study received institutional review board approval, and informed consent was waived. A retrospective review of our database revealed 1526 women who underwent prevalence screening US at a single health screening center and had negative findings on digital mammography (MG). The Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) final assessments of the breast US were analyzed retrospectively, with the reference standard defined as a combination of pathology and a 12-month follow-up. The cancer detection rate and positive predictive value (PPV2) of the biopsies were calculated according to breast density.

Results

The average time to perform a screening US examination was 15–20 min. Of 1526 women, 1095 (71.8%) were classified as BI-RADS category 1 or 2; 340 (22.3%) were classified as category 3; and 91 (6.0%) were classified as category 4. Five malignant lesions were found in women with dense breasts. The overall cancer detection rate was 3.3, and the cancer detection rate for dense breasts was 5.1 per 1000 screens (4.1 per 1000 screens [heterogeneously dense breast], 7.7 per 1000 screens [extremely dense breast]). The PPV2 for biopsies was 5.3%.

Conclusion

The radiologist-performed screening US offered to women with an average risk and dense breasts can detect additional mammographically occult breast cancers. In screening US, a relatively high rate of BI-RADS category 3 and 4 lesions was observed.

Keywords

Screening ultrasound breast cancer detection dense breast average risk women positive predictive value

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mandelson

Oestreicher

Porter

. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1081–1087.

Pisano

Gatsonis

Hendrick

. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773–1783.

Berg

Blume

Cormack

. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151–2163.

Berg

Zhang

Lehrer

. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012; 307: 1394–1404.

Buchberger

Niehoff

Obrist

. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2002; 21: 325–336.

Crystal

Strano

Shcharynski

. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 177–182.

Griffin

Pearlman

. Breast cancer screening in women at average risk and high risk. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 1410–1421.

Corsetti

Houssami

Ferrari

. 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.

Leconte

Feger

Galant

. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 1675–1679.

10.

Berg

. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42: 845–851.

11.

Hooley

Greenberg

Stackhouse

. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012; 265: 59–69.

12.

Kopans

Monsees

Feig

. Screening for cancer: when is it valid? Lessons from the mammography experience. Radiology 2003; 229: 319–327.

13.

Kaplan

. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221: 641–649.

14.

D’Orsi

Bassett

Berg

. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography , 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.

15.

Mendelson

Baum

Berg

. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound , 1st edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.

16.

Fleiss

Levin

Paik

. Statistical methods for rates and proportions , Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Inter science, 2013.

17.

Kopans

. Breast imaging , 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007.

18.

Weigel

Biesheuvel

Berkemeyer

. Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment? Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 684–69.

19.

Nothacker

Duda

Hahn

. 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: 335–335.

20.

Youk

Kim

. Performance of hand-held whole-breast ultrasound based on BI-RADS in women with mammographically negative dense breast. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 667–675.

21.

Barr

Zhang

Cormack

. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial. Radiology 2013; 269: 701–712.

22.

Berg

Zhang

Cormack

. Multiple bilateral circumscribed masses at screening breast US: consider annual follow-up. Radiology 2013; 268: 673–683.

23.

Berg

Cosgrove

Dore

. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 2012; 262: 435–449.

24.

Cho

Chang

. Sonoelastography for 1,786 non-palpable breast masses: diagnostic value in the decision to biopsy. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1033–1040.

25.

Schäfer

Hooley

Ohlinger

. ShearWave™ Elastography BE1 multinational breast study: additional SWE™ features support potential to downgrade BI-RADS®-3 lesions. Ultraschall Med 2013; 34: 254–259.

26.

Corsetti

Houssami

Ferrari

27.

Feig

. Comparison of costs and benefits of breast cancer screening with mammography, ultrasonography, and MRI. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2011; 38: 179–196.

28.

Giuliano

. Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging 2013; 37: 480–486.