Comparison of cancer yields and diagnostic performance of screening mammography vs. Supplemental screening ultrasound in 4394 women with average risk for breast cancer

H. J. Moon, I. Jung, S. J. Park, M. J. Kim, J. H. Youk, E. K. Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The effectiveness of supplemental screening ultrasound (US) was investigated in women ≥40 years at average risk for breast cancer regardless of breast parenchymal density. A total of 4394 women at average risk and having previously undergone screening mammography were classified as the mammography group. Materials and Methods: Of 4394 women, 2005 underwent screening US after a final assessment of category 1 or 2 on screening mammography, and were categorized as the US group.Category 0, 4, and 5 on mammography and 3, 4, and 5 on US were defined as positive. The cancer yields per 1000 women and diagnostic performance of two groups were compared. Results: The total cancer and invasive cancer yields for the mammography group were 3.0 (95% confidence interval 1.6, 5.1) and 2.0 (95% CI, 0.9, 3.9) per 1000 women, higher than the US values of 2.0 (0.5, 5.1) and 1.0 (0.1, 3.6), not statistically significant. The specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) for mammography were 88.90% (87.93, 89.81), 88.85% (87.88, 89.76), and 2.61% (1.39, 4.41), significantly higher than the US values of 69.07% (66.99, 71.09), 69.13% (67.05, 71.15), and 0.64% (0.18, 1.64). The short-term follow-up rate of mammography was 5.51% (4.85, 6.22), significantly lower than the rate of 26.58 (24.66, 28.58) for US. Conclusion: Supplemental screening US in mammographically negative breasts can find additional carcinomas in women at average risk but is not as effective as screening mammography because of the lower cancer yield, invasive cancer yield, specificity, accuracy, PPV and a high short-term follow-up rate.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)255-263
Number of pages9
JournalUltraschall in der Medizin
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Jun 15

Fingerprint

Mammography
Breast Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Breast
Confidence Intervals
Carcinoma

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{2ec16b1fda7c491fafc02b7940d3e688,
title = "Comparison of cancer yields and diagnostic performance of screening mammography vs. Supplemental screening ultrasound in 4394 women with average risk for breast cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: The effectiveness of supplemental screening ultrasound (US) was investigated in women ≥40 years at average risk for breast cancer regardless of breast parenchymal density. A total of 4394 women at average risk and having previously undergone screening mammography were classified as the mammography group. Materials and Methods: Of 4394 women, 2005 underwent screening US after a final assessment of category 1 or 2 on screening mammography, and were categorized as the US group.Category 0, 4, and 5 on mammography and 3, 4, and 5 on US were defined as positive. The cancer yields per 1000 women and diagnostic performance of two groups were compared. Results: The total cancer and invasive cancer yields for the mammography group were 3.0 (95{\%} confidence interval 1.6, 5.1) and 2.0 (95{\%} CI, 0.9, 3.9) per 1000 women, higher than the US values of 2.0 (0.5, 5.1) and 1.0 (0.1, 3.6), not statistically significant. The specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) for mammography were 88.90{\%} (87.93, 89.81), 88.85{\%} (87.88, 89.76), and 2.61{\%} (1.39, 4.41), significantly higher than the US values of 69.07{\%} (66.99, 71.09), 69.13{\%} (67.05, 71.15), and 0.64{\%} (0.18, 1.64). The short-term follow-up rate of mammography was 5.51{\%} (4.85, 6.22), significantly lower than the rate of 26.58 (24.66, 28.58) for US. Conclusion: Supplemental screening US in mammographically negative breasts can find additional carcinomas in women at average risk but is not as effective as screening mammography because of the lower cancer yield, invasive cancer yield, specificity, accuracy, PPV and a high short-term follow-up rate.",
author = "Moon, {H. J.} and I. Jung and Park, {S. J.} and Kim, {M. J.} and Youk, {J. H.} and Kim, {E. K.}",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1055/s-0034-1366288",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "255--263",
journal = "Ultraschall in der Medizin",
issn = "0172-4614",
publisher = "Georg Thieme Verlag",
number = "3",

}

Comparison of cancer yields and diagnostic performance of screening mammography vs. Supplemental screening ultrasound in 4394 women with average risk for breast cancer. / Moon, H. J.; Jung, I.; Park, S. J.; Kim, M. J.; Youk, J. H.; Kim, E. K.

In: Ultraschall in der Medizin, Vol. 36, No. 3, 15.06.2015, p. 255-263.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of cancer yields and diagnostic performance of screening mammography vs. Supplemental screening ultrasound in 4394 women with average risk for breast cancer

AU - Moon, H. J.

AU - Jung, I.

AU - Park, S. J.

AU - Kim, M. J.

AU - Youk, J. H.

AU - Kim, E. K.

PY - 2015/6/15

Y1 - 2015/6/15

N2 - Purpose: The effectiveness of supplemental screening ultrasound (US) was investigated in women ≥40 years at average risk for breast cancer regardless of breast parenchymal density. A total of 4394 women at average risk and having previously undergone screening mammography were classified as the mammography group. Materials and Methods: Of 4394 women, 2005 underwent screening US after a final assessment of category 1 or 2 on screening mammography, and were categorized as the US group.Category 0, 4, and 5 on mammography and 3, 4, and 5 on US were defined as positive. The cancer yields per 1000 women and diagnostic performance of two groups were compared. Results: The total cancer and invasive cancer yields for the mammography group were 3.0 (95% confidence interval 1.6, 5.1) and 2.0 (95% CI, 0.9, 3.9) per 1000 women, higher than the US values of 2.0 (0.5, 5.1) and 1.0 (0.1, 3.6), not statistically significant. The specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) for mammography were 88.90% (87.93, 89.81), 88.85% (87.88, 89.76), and 2.61% (1.39, 4.41), significantly higher than the US values of 69.07% (66.99, 71.09), 69.13% (67.05, 71.15), and 0.64% (0.18, 1.64). The short-term follow-up rate of mammography was 5.51% (4.85, 6.22), significantly lower than the rate of 26.58 (24.66, 28.58) for US. Conclusion: Supplemental screening US in mammographically negative breasts can find additional carcinomas in women at average risk but is not as effective as screening mammography because of the lower cancer yield, invasive cancer yield, specificity, accuracy, PPV and a high short-term follow-up rate.

AB - Purpose: The effectiveness of supplemental screening ultrasound (US) was investigated in women ≥40 years at average risk for breast cancer regardless of breast parenchymal density. A total of 4394 women at average risk and having previously undergone screening mammography were classified as the mammography group. Materials and Methods: Of 4394 women, 2005 underwent screening US after a final assessment of category 1 or 2 on screening mammography, and were categorized as the US group.Category 0, 4, and 5 on mammography and 3, 4, and 5 on US were defined as positive. The cancer yields per 1000 women and diagnostic performance of two groups were compared. Results: The total cancer and invasive cancer yields for the mammography group were 3.0 (95% confidence interval 1.6, 5.1) and 2.0 (95% CI, 0.9, 3.9) per 1000 women, higher than the US values of 2.0 (0.5, 5.1) and 1.0 (0.1, 3.6), not statistically significant. The specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) for mammography were 88.90% (87.93, 89.81), 88.85% (87.88, 89.76), and 2.61% (1.39, 4.41), significantly higher than the US values of 69.07% (66.99, 71.09), 69.13% (67.05, 71.15), and 0.64% (0.18, 1.64). The short-term follow-up rate of mammography was 5.51% (4.85, 6.22), significantly lower than the rate of 26.58 (24.66, 28.58) for US. Conclusion: Supplemental screening US in mammographically negative breasts can find additional carcinomas in women at average risk but is not as effective as screening mammography because of the lower cancer yield, invasive cancer yield, specificity, accuracy, PPV and a high short-term follow-up rate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84931010349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84931010349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0034-1366288

DO - 10.1055/s-0034-1366288

M3 - Article

C2 - 24764212

AN - SCOPUS:84931010349

VL - 36

SP - 255

EP - 263

JO - Ultraschall in der Medizin

JF - Ultraschall in der Medizin

SN - 0172-4614

IS - 3

ER -