Cargando…

Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer and to evaluate the benefit of preoperative breast MRI after performing conventio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Hai-long, Zhou, Jiao-qun, Chen, Qiang, Deng, Yong-chuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8257894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34190189
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026531
_version_ 1783718399546753024
author Chen, Hai-long
Zhou, Jiao-qun
Chen, Qiang
Deng, Yong-chuan
author_facet Chen, Hai-long
Zhou, Jiao-qun
Chen, Qiang
Deng, Yong-chuan
author_sort Chen, Hai-long
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer and to evaluate the benefit of preoperative breast MRI after performing conventional imaging techniques for small breast cancer. This was an observational retrospective review of 475 patients with pathologically confirmed breast cancer. We reviewed the medical records; assessed the preoperative reports of MG, US, and MRI; and categorized them as benign features (BI-RADS 1–3) or malignant features (BI-RADS 4 or 5). The criterion standard for detection was the pathologic assessment of the surgical specimen. The sensitivities of the different techniques were compared using the McNemar test. Among the 475 women, the sensitivity of MG was significantly greater in patients with low breast density than in those with high breast density (84.5% vs 65.8%, P < .001). US had higher sensitivity than MG (P < .001), and the combination of MG + US showed better sensitivity than MG or US alone (P < .001). Further addition of MRI to the combination of MG and US statistically contributed to the sensitivity yield (from 93.3% to 98.2%; P < .001) but did not significantly increase the mastectomy rate (from 48.2% to 49.3%; P = .177). MG has limited diagnostic sensitivity in patients with small breast cancer, especially in those with dense breast tissue. US is better than MG at detecting small breast cancer, regardless of breast density. The addition of MRI to MG and US could increase sensitivity without increasing the mastectomy rate. This study suggests performing MRI routinely on the basis of MG and US for small (≤2 cm) breast cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8257894
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82578942021-07-08 Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer Chen, Hai-long Zhou, Jiao-qun Chen, Qiang Deng, Yong-chuan Medicine (Baltimore) 4100 The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer and to evaluate the benefit of preoperative breast MRI after performing conventional imaging techniques for small breast cancer. This was an observational retrospective review of 475 patients with pathologically confirmed breast cancer. We reviewed the medical records; assessed the preoperative reports of MG, US, and MRI; and categorized them as benign features (BI-RADS 1–3) or malignant features (BI-RADS 4 or 5). The criterion standard for detection was the pathologic assessment of the surgical specimen. The sensitivities of the different techniques were compared using the McNemar test. Among the 475 women, the sensitivity of MG was significantly greater in patients with low breast density than in those with high breast density (84.5% vs 65.8%, P < .001). US had higher sensitivity than MG (P < .001), and the combination of MG + US showed better sensitivity than MG or US alone (P < .001). Further addition of MRI to the combination of MG and US statistically contributed to the sensitivity yield (from 93.3% to 98.2%; P < .001) but did not significantly increase the mastectomy rate (from 48.2% to 49.3%; P = .177). MG has limited diagnostic sensitivity in patients with small breast cancer, especially in those with dense breast tissue. US is better than MG at detecting small breast cancer, regardless of breast density. The addition of MRI to MG and US could increase sensitivity without increasing the mastectomy rate. This study suggests performing MRI routinely on the basis of MG and US for small (≤2 cm) breast cancer. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8257894/ /pubmed/34190189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026531 Text en Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle 4100
Chen, Hai-long
Zhou, Jiao-qun
Chen, Qiang
Deng, Yong-chuan
Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer
title Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer
title_full Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer
title_short Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer
title_sort comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer
topic 4100
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8257894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34190189
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026531
work_keys_str_mv AT chenhailong comparisonofthesensitivityofmammographyultrasoundmagneticresonanceimagingandcombinationsoftheseimagingmodalitiesforthedetectionofsmall2cmbreastcancer
AT zhoujiaoqun comparisonofthesensitivityofmammographyultrasoundmagneticresonanceimagingandcombinationsoftheseimagingmodalitiesforthedetectionofsmall2cmbreastcancer
AT chenqiang comparisonofthesensitivityofmammographyultrasoundmagneticresonanceimagingandcombinationsoftheseimagingmodalitiesforthedetectionofsmall2cmbreastcancer
AT dengyongchuan comparisonofthesensitivityofmammographyultrasoundmagneticresonanceimagingandcombinationsoftheseimagingmodalitiesforthedetectionofsmall2cmbreastcancer