You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 299 No. 18, May 14, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Original Contribution
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •JAMA Report Video
 •Author in the Room™ Teleconference
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (34)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letters
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Breast Cancer
 •Radiologic Imaging
 •Women's Health
 •Women's Health, Other
 •Diagnosis
 •Mammography
 •Ultrasonography
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer

Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD; Jeffrey D. Blume, PhD; Jean B. Cormack, PhD; Ellen B. Mendelson, MD; Daniel Lehrer, MD; Marcela Böhm-Vélez, MD; Etta D. Pisano, MD; Roberta A. Jong, MD; W. Phil Evans, MD; Marilyn J. Morton, DO; Mary C. Mahoney, MD; Linda Hovanessian Larsen, MD; Richard G. Barr, MD, PhD; Dione M. Farria, MD, MPH; Helga S. Marques, MS; Karan Boparai, RT; for the ACRIN 6666 Investigators

JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-2163.

Context  Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography.

Objective  To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants  From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants.

Main Outcome Measures  Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone.

Results  Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%).

Conclusions  Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501


Author Affiliations: American Radiology Services Inc, Johns Hopkins Green Spring, Lutherville, Maryland (Dr Berg); Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island (Drs Blume and Cormack and Ms Marques); Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois (Dr Mendelson); CERIM, Buenos Aires, Argentina (Dr Lehrer); Weinstein Imaging Associates, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Dr Böhm-Vélez); University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill (Dr Pisano); University of Toronto, Sunnybrook and Women's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Dr Jong); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (Dr Evans); Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Morton); University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio (Dr Mahoney); Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (Dr Larsen); Forum Health, Western Reserve Care System, Youngstown, Ohio (Dr Barr); Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri (Dr Farria); American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Ms Boparai).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening
B. Dale Magee
JAMA. 2008;300(13):1514.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening
Nehmat Houssami and Stefano Ciatto
JAMA. 2008;300(13):1514-1515.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening—Reply
Wendie A. Berg and Ellen B. Mendelson
JAMA. 2008;300(13):1515.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLES

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening
B. Dale Magee
JAMA. 2008;300(13):1514.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The "Coming of Age" of Nonmammographic Screening for Breast Cancer
Christiane K. Kuhl
JAMA. 2008;299(18):2203-2205.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Synthetic aperture diffraction tomography for three-dimensional imaging
Simonetti and Huang
Proc R Soc A 2009;465:2877-2895.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Role of MRI in breast cancer management
ENRIQUEZ and LISTINSKY
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2009;76:525-532.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

US Surveillance of Regional Lymph Node Recurrence after Breast Cancer Surgery
Moon et al.
Radiology 2009;252:673-681.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tailored Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer: What Now and What Next?
Berg
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009;192:390-399.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Sonographic Surveillance for the Detection of Contralateral Metachronous Breast Cancer in an Asian Population
Kim et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009;192:221-228.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening
Magee
JAMA 2008;300:1514-1514.
FULL TEXT  

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening
Houssami and Ciatto
JAMA 2008;300:1514-1515.
FULL TEXT  

All you need to read in the other general journals
BMJ 2008;336:1156-1157.
FULL TEXT  

Ultrasound, Mammography, or Both for Breast Cancer Detection?
JWatch Women's Health 2008;2008:1-1.
FULL TEXT  

Ultrasound Plus Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening
JWatch General 2008;2008:1-1.
FULL TEXT  

The "Coming of Age" of Nonmammographic Screening for Breast Cancer
Kuhl
JAMA 2008;299:2203-2205.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.