Display options
Cite
Adibi A, Golshahi M, Sirus M, et al. Breast cancer screening: Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with unilateral mammography-negative dense breasts. J Res Med Sci. 2015;20(3):228-32
Adibi, A., Golshahi, M., Sirus, M., & Kazemi, K. (2015). Breast cancer screening: Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with unilateral mammography-negative dense breasts. Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 20(3), 228-32.
Adibi, Atoosa, et al. "Breast cancer screening: Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with unilateral mammography-negative dense breasts." Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences vol. 20,3 (2015): 228-32.
Adibi A, Golshahi M, Sirus M, Kazemi K. Breast cancer screening: Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with unilateral mammography-negative dense breasts. J Res Med Sci. 2015 Mar;20(3):228-32. PMID: 26109967; PMCID: PMC4468225.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Res Med Sci. 2015 Mar;20(3):228-32.

Breast cancer screening: Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with unilateral mammography-negative dense breasts.

Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Atoosa Adibi, Maryam Golshahi, Mehri Sirus, Kimia Kazemi

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
  2. Department of Radiology, Medical faculty, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

PMID: 26109967 PMCID: PMC4468225

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with the previous history of breast cancer are in risk of contralateral breast cancer. On the other hand, increased breast density is a risk factor for breast cancer and the sensitivity of detecting nonpalpable cancers in screening mammography in radiographically dense breasts is low. The use of ultrasonography in dense breast remains a controversial topic. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of routine ultrasonography in follow-up of women with the previous history of breast cancer and negative mammography but dense breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, a total of 267 individuals with unilateral postmastectomy mammogram screened and 153 subjects assigned to study. There were 28 subjects with American College of Radiology (ACR) breast density 2 and 125 with ACR breast density 3-4, which there was no new finding in their mammogram in comparison to previous studies. We assumed subjects with ACR breast density 3-4 as mammographic Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 0 for malignancy. Standard two-view mammogram was performed for all participants, and breast ultrasound (US) examinations were performed by an expert radiologist in radial and anti-radial planes. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA).

RESULTS: The results showed that in subjects with ACR breast density 3-4, when there was no new density in two consecutive mammograms in comparison to previous studies, US also showed no possibility for malignancy (BI-RADS 1-2). And also in subjects with ACR breast density 2, when the mammographic results were BI-RADS 1-2, the US results was the same.

CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that for the detection of breast cancer, sensitivity of US was not greater than mammography in patients with postmastectomy unilateral dense breast if there is not any new density.

Keywords: Breast cancer; breast density; breast imaging reporting and data system; mammography; ultrasound

References

  1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 May;180(5):1225-8 - PubMed
  2. Cancer. 2003 Nov 15;98(10):2133-43 - PubMed
  3. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Oct;185(4):944-50 - PubMed
  4. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5):1169-77 - PubMed
  5. Am J Surg. 2004 Oct;188(4):381-5 - PubMed
  6. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2012 Oct;41(10 ):432-9 - PubMed
  7. Radiology. 2001 Apr;219(1):192-202 - PubMed
  8. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010 Sep-Oct;60(5):277-300 - PubMed
  9. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Dec 20;81(24):1879-86 - PubMed
  10. Breast. 2011 Aug;20(4):370-2 - PubMed
  11. Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):830-49 - PubMed
  12. Radiology. 2013 Aug;268(2):347-55 - PubMed
  13. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Dec;7(12):920-30 - PubMed
  14. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010 Sep;48(5):859-78 - PubMed
  15. Breast J. 2015 Mar-Apr;21(2):175-80 - PubMed
  16. Breast J. 2013 Jan-Feb;19(1):64-70 - PubMed
  17. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2011 Mar;38(1):179-96, ix - PubMed
  18. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2012 Nov;34(11):877-80 - PubMed
  19. JAMA. 2008 May 14;299(18):2151-63 - PubMed
  20. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2011 Aug;32(4):273-80 - PubMed
  21. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Jan;10(1):11-4 - PubMed
  22. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004 Sep;42(5):845-51, vi - PubMed
  23. Eur Radiol. 2010 Mar;20(3):734-42 - PubMed
  24. Tumori. 2007 Nov-Dec;93(6):562-6 - PubMed
  25. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):227-36 - PubMed
  26. Radiology. 2006 May;239(2):375-83 - PubMed
  27. Radiology. 2012 Oct;265(1):59-69 - PubMed
  28. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 May;22(5):946-61 - PubMed
  29. Curr Oncol. 2012 Jul;19(Suppl 2):eS22-30 - PubMed
  30. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Mar 7;99(5):386-95 - PubMed

Publication Types