Cargando…

Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the detection of breast cancer using full-field digital mammography (FFDM), FFDM with computer-aided detection (FFDM+CAD), ultrasound (US), and FFDM+CAD plus US (FFDM+CAD+US), and to investigate the factors affecting cancer detection. METHODS: In this retrospective study...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cho, Kyu Ran, Seo, Bo Kyoung, Woo, Ok Hee, Song, Sung Eun, Choi, Jungsoon, Whang, Shin Young, Park, Eun Kyung, Park, Ah Young, Shin, Hyeseon, Chung, Hwan Hoon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Breast Cancer Society 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5053317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27721882
http://dx.doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2016.19.3.316
_version_ 1782458391135780864
author Cho, Kyu Ran
Seo, Bo Kyoung
Woo, Ok Hee
Song, Sung Eun
Choi, Jungsoon
Whang, Shin Young
Park, Eun Kyung
Park, Ah Young
Shin, Hyeseon
Chung, Hwan Hoon
author_facet Cho, Kyu Ran
Seo, Bo Kyoung
Woo, Ok Hee
Song, Sung Eun
Choi, Jungsoon
Whang, Shin Young
Park, Eun Kyung
Park, Ah Young
Shin, Hyeseon
Chung, Hwan Hoon
author_sort Cho, Kyu Ran
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the detection of breast cancer using full-field digital mammography (FFDM), FFDM with computer-aided detection (FFDM+CAD), ultrasound (US), and FFDM+CAD plus US (FFDM+CAD+US), and to investigate the factors affecting cancer detection. METHODS: In this retrospective study conducted from 2008 to 2012, 48,251 women underwent FFDM and US for cancer screening. One hundred seventy-one breast cancers were detected: 115 invasive cancers and 56 carcinomas in situ. Two radiologists evaluated the imaging findings of FFDM, FFDM+CAD, and US, based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon of the American College of Radiology by consensus. We reviewed the clinical and the pathological data to investigate factors affecting cancer detection. We statistically used generalized estimation equations with a logit link to compare the cancer detectability of different imaging modalities. To compare the various factors affecting detection versus nondetection, we used Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The detectability of breast cancer by US (96.5%) or FFDM+CAD+US (100%) was superior to that of FFDM (87.1%) (p=0.019 or p<0.001, respectively) or FFDM+ CAD (88.3%) (p=0.050 or p<0.001, respectively). However, cancer detectability was not significantly different between FFDM versus FFDM+CAD (p=1.000) and US alone versus FFDM+CAD+US (p=0.126). The tumor size influenced cancer detectability by all imaging modalities (p<0.050). In FFDM and FFDM+CAD, the nondetecting group consisted of younger patients and patients with a denser breast composition (p<0.050). In breast US, carcinoma in situ was more frequent in the nondetecting group (p=0.014). CONCLUSION: For breast cancer screening, breast US alone is satisfactory for all age groups, although FFDM+ CAD+US is the perfect screening method. Patient age, breast composition, and pathological tumor size and type may influence cancer detection during screening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5053317
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Korean Breast Cancer Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50533172016-10-07 Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound Cho, Kyu Ran Seo, Bo Kyoung Woo, Ok Hee Song, Sung Eun Choi, Jungsoon Whang, Shin Young Park, Eun Kyung Park, Ah Young Shin, Hyeseon Chung, Hwan Hoon J Breast Cancer Original Article PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the detection of breast cancer using full-field digital mammography (FFDM), FFDM with computer-aided detection (FFDM+CAD), ultrasound (US), and FFDM+CAD plus US (FFDM+CAD+US), and to investigate the factors affecting cancer detection. METHODS: In this retrospective study conducted from 2008 to 2012, 48,251 women underwent FFDM and US for cancer screening. One hundred seventy-one breast cancers were detected: 115 invasive cancers and 56 carcinomas in situ. Two radiologists evaluated the imaging findings of FFDM, FFDM+CAD, and US, based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon of the American College of Radiology by consensus. We reviewed the clinical and the pathological data to investigate factors affecting cancer detection. We statistically used generalized estimation equations with a logit link to compare the cancer detectability of different imaging modalities. To compare the various factors affecting detection versus nondetection, we used Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The detectability of breast cancer by US (96.5%) or FFDM+CAD+US (100%) was superior to that of FFDM (87.1%) (p=0.019 or p<0.001, respectively) or FFDM+ CAD (88.3%) (p=0.050 or p<0.001, respectively). However, cancer detectability was not significantly different between FFDM versus FFDM+CAD (p=1.000) and US alone versus FFDM+CAD+US (p=0.126). The tumor size influenced cancer detectability by all imaging modalities (p<0.050). In FFDM and FFDM+CAD, the nondetecting group consisted of younger patients and patients with a denser breast composition (p<0.050). In breast US, carcinoma in situ was more frequent in the nondetecting group (p=0.014). CONCLUSION: For breast cancer screening, breast US alone is satisfactory for all age groups, although FFDM+ CAD+US is the perfect screening method. Patient age, breast composition, and pathological tumor size and type may influence cancer detection during screening. Korean Breast Cancer Society 2016-09 2016-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5053317/ /pubmed/27721882 http://dx.doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2016.19.3.316 Text en © 2016 Korean Breast Cancer Society. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Cho, Kyu Ran
Seo, Bo Kyoung
Woo, Ok Hee
Song, Sung Eun
Choi, Jungsoon
Whang, Shin Young
Park, Eun Kyung
Park, Ah Young
Shin, Hyeseon
Chung, Hwan Hoon
Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound
title Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound
title_full Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound
title_fullStr Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound
title_full_unstemmed Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound
title_short Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound
title_sort breast cancer detection in a screening population: comparison of digital mammography, computer-aided detection applied to digital mammography and breast ultrasound
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5053317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27721882
http://dx.doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2016.19.3.316
work_keys_str_mv AT chokyuran breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT seobokyoung breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT woookhee breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT songsungeun breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT choijungsoon breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT whangshinyoung breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT parkeunkyung breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT parkahyoung breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT shinhyeseon breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound
AT chunghwanhoon breastcancerdetectioninascreeningpopulationcomparisonofdigitalmammographycomputeraideddetectionappliedtodigitalmammographyandbreastultrasound