| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Radiology, Université Catholique de Louvain, Cliniques
Universitaires Saint-Luc, Ave. Hippocrate 10, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium.
2 Department of Pathology, Université Catholique de Louvain, Cliniques
Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
3 Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Université Catholique de Louvain,
Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
4 Ecole de Santé Publique, Université Catholique de Louvain,
Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
OBJECTIVE. Our purpose was to determine the contribution of mammography followed by sonography for the detection of nonpalpable breast cancers in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density grades 1–4 breasts, in grades 1 and 2 breasts, and in grades 3 and 4 breasts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The results of physical, mammographic, and sonographic examinations performed in 4236 patients were reviewed to determine the sensitivities of mammography and sonography for the detection of nonpalpable breast cancers and to calculate the relative risk for detecting nonpalpable breast cancers using sonography in comparison with mammography in density grades 1–4, grades 1 and 2, and grades 3 and 4 breasts. Sonography was performed after mammographic interpretation.
RESULTS. Sensitivities of mammography and subsequent sonography for the detection of nonpalpable breast cancers were 69% and 88% in grades 1–4, 80% and 88% in grades 1 and 2, and 56% and 88% in grades 3 and 4 breasts, respectively. The relative risk for detecting nonpalpable breast cancers using sonography was statistically significantly greater than that for detecting nonpalpable breast cancers using mammography in grades 1–4 (relative risk, 1.29; p = 0.024) and in grades 3 and 4 (relative risk, 1.57; p = 0.013) but not in grades 1 and 2 (relative risk, 1.1; p = 0.445) breasts.
CONCLUSION. Sonography is a useful adjunct after mammography for the detection of nonpalpable breast cancer, particularly in the dense breast.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. A. Berg Tailored Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer: What Now and What Next? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2009; 192(2): 390 - 399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, D. Lehrer, M. Bohm-Velez, E. D. Pisano, R. A. Jong, W. P. Evans, M. J. Morton, et al. Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer JAMA, May 14, 2008; 299(18): 2151 - 2163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. D. Pisano, R. E. Hendrick, M. Yaffe, E. F. Conant, and C. Gatsonis Should Breast Imaging Practices Convert to Digital Mammography? A Response from Members of the DMIST Executive Committee Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 12 - 13. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, G. Hopf, C. Graf, and E. A. Sickles Probably Benign Breast Masses at US: Is Follow-up an Acceptable Alternative to Biopsy? Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 87 - 93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Sickles Wolfe Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns and Breast Cancer Risk Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 301 - 303. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Carney, L. A. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, K. R. Yabroff, E. A. Sickles, D. S. M. Buist, C. J. Kasales, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, M. B. Dignan, et al. Factors Associated with Imaging and Procedural Events Used to Detect Breast Cancer After Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 385 - 392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, and E. B. Mendelson Operator Dependence of Physician-performed Whole-Breast US: Lesion Detection and Characterization. Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 355 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, and E. L. Madsen Lesion Detection and Characterization in a Breast US Phantom: Results of the ACRIN 6666 Investigators Radiology, June 1, 2006; 239(3): 693 - 702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Costantini, P. Belli, R. Lombardi, G. Franceschini, A. Mule, and L. Bonomo Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. J. Ultrasound Med., May 1, 2006; 25(5): 649 - 659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Berg Sonographically Depicted Breast Clustered Microcysts: Is Follow-Up Appropriate? Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 952 - 959. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Bluemke, C. A. Gatsonis, M. H. Chen, G. A. DeAngelis, N. DeBruhl, S. Harms, S. H. Heywang-Kobrunner, N. Hylton, C. K. Kuhl, C. Lehman, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy JAMA, December 8, 2004; 292(22): 2735 - 2742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Kopans Sonography Should Not Be Used for Breast Cancer Screening Until Its Efficacy Has Been Proven Scientifically Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2004; 182(2): 489 - 491. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
