Comparison of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic women

Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk

BACKGROUND

Screening mammography can detect breast cancer at an early stage. Supporters of adding ultrasonography to the screening regimen consider it a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce false-negative rates during screening. However, those opposed to it argue that performing supplemental ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false-positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 3 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For efficacy and harms, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies enrolling at least 500 women at average risk for breast cancer between the ages of 40 and 75. We also included studies where 80% of the population met our age and breast cancer risk inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available event rates. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies: one RCT, two prospective cohort studies, and five retrospective cohort studies, enrolling 209,207 women with a follow-up duration from one to three years. The proportion of women with dense breasts ranged from 48% to 100%. Five studies used digital mammography; one study used breast tomosynthesis; and two studies used automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in addition to mammography screening. One study used digital mammography alone or in combination with breast tomosynthesis and ABUS or handheld ultrasonography. Six of the eight studies evaluated the rate of cancer cases detected after one screening round, whilst two studies screened women once, twice, or more. None of the studies assessed whether mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography led to lower mortality from breast cancer or all-cause mortality. High certainty evidence from one trial showed that screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography detects more breast cancer than mammography alone. The J-START (Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomised Trial), enrolling 72,717 asymptomatic women, had a low risk of bias and found that two additional breast cancers per 1000 women were detected over two years with one additional ultrasonography than with mammography alone (5 versus 3 per 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.94). Low certainty evidence showed that the percentage of invasive tumours was similar, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (69.6% (128 of 184) versus 73.5% (86 of 117); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09). However, positive lymph node status was detected less frequently in women with invasive cancer who underwent mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography than in women who underwent mammography alone (18% (23 of 128) versus 34% (29 of 86); RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence). Further, interval carcinomas occurred less frequently in the group screened by mammography and ultrasonography compared with mammography alone (5 versus 10 in 10,000 women; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89; 72,717 participants; high certainty evidence). False-negative results were less common when ultrasonography was used in addition to mammography than with mammography alone: 9% (18 of 202) versus 23% (35 of 152; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). However, the number of false-positive results and necessary biopsies were higher in the group with additional ultrasonography screening. Amongst 1000 women who do not have cancer, 37 more received a false-positive result when they participated in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography than with mammography alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.50; high certainty evidence). Compared to mammography alone, for every 1000 women participating in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography, 27 more women will have a biopsy (RR 2.49, 95% CI 2.28 to 2.72; high certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies with methodological limitations confirmed these findings. A secondary analysis of the J-START provided results from 19,213 women with dense and non-dense breasts. In women with dense breasts, the combination of mammography and ultrasonography detected three more cancer cases (0 fewer to 7 more) per 1000 women screened than mammography alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.72; 11,390 participants; high certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of three cohort studies with data from 50,327 women with dense breasts supported this finding, showing that mammography and ultrasonography combined led to statistically significantly more diagnosed cancer cases compared to mammography alone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.56; 50,327 participants; moderate certainty evidence). For women with non-dense breasts, the secondary analysis of the J-START study demonstrated that more cancer cases were detected when adding ultrasound to mammography screening compared to mammography alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.68; 7823 participants; moderate certainty evidence), whilst two cohort studies with data from 40,636 women found no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on one study in women at average risk of breast cancer, ultrasonography in addition to mammography leads to more screening-detected breast cancer cases. For women with dense breasts, cohort studies more in line with real-life clinical practice confirmed this finding, whilst cohort studies for women with non-dense breasts showed no statistically significant difference between the two screening interventions. However, the number of false-positive results and biopsy rates were higher in women receiving additional ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. None of the included studies analysed whether the higher number of screen-detected cancers in the intervention group resulted in a lower mortality rate compared to mammography alone. Randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort studies with a longer observation period are needed to assess the effects of the two screening interventions on morbidity and mortality.

Precision biopsy of breast microcalcifications: An improvement in surgical excision

The aim of the present study was to improve the conventional wire-guided localization biopsy (WGLB) of breast microcalcifications to overcome disadvantages associated with the procedure, including inaccurate localization and large specimen volume. The novel approach described in the present study was termed double wire-guided localization and rotary cutting biopsy (DWGLB). Prior to surgery, the precise localization of the lesions was assessed using two wires under the assistance of mammography X-ray and ultrasound, followed by complete excision of the lesions using a novel rotary cutting tool. The cylindrical specimen was placed on a scaled specimen holder for pathological examination. DWGLB was performed in 108 patients with the classification of as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score 4A. Percutaneous localization of the lesions guided by a mammography X-ray and ultrasound were successful in all 108 lesions (100%) with one puncture attempt. The lesions were precisely excised in all of 108 patients, and included 13 malignant lesions (DCIS of breast in 7 cases, DCIS with focal invasive carcinoma in 3 cases and invasive ductal carcinoma in 3 cases). The average distance of the BARD Dualok to the lesion was 4.1 mm; the average weight of specimens was 8.5 g. Compared with WGLB, DWGLB offers several advantages, including more accurate localization of lesions, a more standardized biopsy method and a smaller specimen volume. DWGLB can also provide the precise position of lesions in the specimen for further pathological examination.

Potential Safety Loophole of Fat Grafting in Breast Cancer Patients

Autologous fat grafting (AFG) accounts for 9.1 % of all cosmetic surgical procedures in the world. Its use has been increasing tremendously in breast reconstruction and produces satisfying outcomes. However, the lack of standard guidelines for routine screening protocols in breast cancer patients before and after AFG warrants consideration of the safety of AFG use in post-mastectomy and post-lumpectomy reconstruction. This manuscript examines AFG in breast reconstruction publications and details the complications, the mechanism of AFG, as well as the relationship between adipose stem cells (ASCs) and cancer recurrence. The ASCs transferred in AFG act as multiple potent stem cells, which can impact cancer recurrence in various ways. Both in vitro and in vivo studies show that ASCs can stimulate the recurrence of breast cancer. Based on a review of existing evidence, we provide recommendations and guidelines for AFG use in breast reconstruction to aid in clinical decision-making. Further investigations are needed to evaluate the long-term clinical safety of AFG as well as the proposed guidelines.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Relation between Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns and Breast Cancer Risk: Considering BMI, Compressed Breast Thickness and Age of Women in Tabriz, Iran

BACKGROUND

Mammographic density determined according paranchymal patterns is a risk factor for breast cancer and its relationships with body and other breast characteristics of women is important. The purpose of the present study was to correlate breast parenchymal patterns and mammography abnormality findings with women's BMI, compressed breast thickness (CBT) and age in Tabriz city, Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1,100 mammograms interpreted by radiologists, breast parenchymal was classified into four categories from Types 1 (mostly fatty) through 4 (mostly fibroglandular tissue). Age, BMI, and CBT were recorded and their relation with risk for the development of breast abnormalities in mammograms was analyzed.

RESULTS

In women with a mean age of 45.8±8.63 years 17.7% were in the high density group (Type 3 and 4). A comparison of four types of breast paranchymal with BMI, CBT and age showed inverse relations to breast density. Abnormal mammographic findings were 25.8% of all reported mammograms with a circular mass (12.7%) as the most common abnormality. About 21% abnormal cases were in less than 40 years. Increasing of BMI had significant relation with breast abnormality but in CBT was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of women's body characteristics is useful for assistance in mammography diagnosis as well as selection of imaging instrument by high sensitivity for following patient in future. The effects of age, CBT and BMI groups on the breast paranchymal were significant.

Comparison of automated breast volume scanning and hand- held ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer: an analysis of 5,566 patient evaluations

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in the detection of breast cancer in a large population group with a long-term follow-up, and to investigate whether different ultrasound systems may influence the estimation of cancer detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. From September 2010 to August 2011, a total of 1,866 ABVS and 3,700 HHUS participants, who underwent these procedures at our institute, were included in this study. Cancers occurring during the study and subsequent follow-up were evaluated. The reference standard was a combination of histology and follow-up imaging (≥12 months). The recall rate, cancer detection yield, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated with exact 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The recall rate was 2.57 per 1,000 (48/1,866) for ABVS and 3.57 per 1,000 (132/3,700) for HHUS, with ? significant difference (p=0.048). The cancer detection yield was 3.8 per 1,000 for ABVS and 2.7 per 1,000 for HHUS. The diagnostic accuracy was 97.7% for ABVS and 96.5% for HHUS with statistical significance (p=0.018). The specificity of ABVS and HHUS were 97.8%, 96.7%, respectively (p=0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

ABVS shows a comparable diagnostic performance to HHUS. ABVS is an effective supplemental tool for mammography in breast cancer detection in a large population.

Comparative study of contrast-enhanced ultrasound qualitative and quantitative analysis for identifying benign and malignant breast tumor lumps

BACKGROUND

To compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) qualitative and quantitative analysis in the identification of breast tumor lumps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative and quantitative indicators of CEUS for 73 cases of breast tumor lumps were retrospectively analyzed by univariate and multivariate approaches. Logistic regression was applied and ROC curves were drawn for evaluation and comparison.

RESULTS

The CEUS qualitative indicator-generated regression equation contained three indicators, namely enhanced homogeneity, diameter line expansion and peak intensity grading, which demonstrated prediction accuracy for benign and malignant breast tumor lumps of 91.8%; the quantitative indicator-generated regression equation only contained one indicator, namely the relative peak intensity, and its prediction accuracy was 61.5%. The corresponding areas under the ROC curve for qualitative and quantitative analyses were 91.3% and 75.7%, respectively, which exhibited a statistically significant difference by the Z test (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of CEUS qualitative analysis to identify breast tumor lumps is better than with quantitative analysis.

Systemic analysis on risk factors for breast cancer related lymphedema

BACKGROUND

To evaluate risk factors for upper extremity lymphedema due to breast cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical studies published on PubMed, Ovid, EMbase, and Cochrane Library from January 1996 to December 2012 were selected.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were identified, including 12,104 patients. Six risk factors related to the incidence of lymphedema after breast cancer treatment were detected: axillary lymph node dissection (OR=3.73, 95%CI 1.16 to 11.96), postoperative complications (OR=2.64, 95%CI 1.10 to 6.30), hypertension (OR=1.83, 95%CI 1.38 to 2.42), high body mass index (OR=1.80, 95%CI 1.30 to 2.49), chemotherapy (OR=1.38, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.79) and radiotherapy (OR=1.35, 95%CI 1.10 to 1.66). We found significant protective factors for lymphedema: pathologic T classification (OR=0.57, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.91) and stage (OR=0.60, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.93), while some factors, like age, number of positive lymph nodes, number of lymph node dissection, demonstrated no obvious correlation.

CONCLUSIONS

Axillary lymph node dissection, postoperative complications, hypertension, body mass index, chemotherapy, radiotherapy are risk factors for lymphedema after breast cancer treatment. Attention should be paid to patients with risk factors to prevent the occurrence of lymphedema.

Cancer control programs in East Asia: evidence from the international literature

Cancer is a major cause of mortality and morbidity throughout the world, including the countries of North-East and South-East Asia. Assessment of burden through cancer registration, determination of risk and protective factors, early detection and screening, clinical practice, interventions for example in vaccination, tobacco cessation efforts and palliative care all should be included in comprehensive cancer control programs. The degree to which this is possible naturally depends on the resources available at local, national and international levels. The present review concerns elements of cancer control programs established in China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan in North-East Asia, Viet Nam, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia as representative larger countries of South-East Asia for comparison, using the published literature as a guide. While major advances have been made, there are still areas which need more attention, especially in South-East Asia, and international cooperation is essential if standard guidelines are to be generated to allow effective cancer control efforts throughout the Far East.

Cancer is a major cause of mortality and morbidity throughout the world, including the countries of North-East and South-East Asia. Assessment of burden through cancer registration, determination of risk and protective factors, early detection and screening, clinical practice, interventions for example in vaccination, tobacco cessation efforts and palliative care all should be included in comprehensive cancer control programs. The degree to which this is possible naturally depends on the resources available at local, national and international levels. The present review concerns elements of cancer control programs established in China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan in North-East Asia, Viet Nam, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia as representative larger countries of South-East Asia for comparison, using the published literature as a guide. While major advances have been made, there are still areas which need more attention, especially in South-East Asia, and international cooperation is essential if standard guidelines are to be generated to allow effective cancer control efforts throughout the Far East.