Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis

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.

The diagnostic performance of shear wave velocity ratio for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions: Compared with VTQ, and mammography

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic value of shear wave velocity (SWV) ratio for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our retrospective study included 151 breast lesions that were diagnosed by biopsy and surgical pathology. All of the breast lesions were detected by conventional ultrasound and Virtual Touch tissue quantification (VTQ) and mammography. The sonographic characteristics of the breast lesion, such as the internal echo, shape, margin, color flow, and calcification so on, were also observed. The SWV in lesions and surrounding parenchyma were measured and the SWV ratio between the lesion and surrounding parenchyma was calculated. Pathological results were used as a diagnosis standard to compare the value of SWV ratio, VTQ, and mammography in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions.

RESULTS

The 151 breast lesions included 96 benign lesions and 55 malignant lesions. The cutoff value of VTQ in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions was 5.01 m/s, of SWV ratio was 2.43, and mammography was BI-RADS 4B. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the SWV ratio were 78.2%, 86.5%, 83.4%, and 0.83 respectively. While of SWV ratio with mammography was 86.4%, 89.4%, 88.3% and 0.87, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC of SWV ratio and SWV ratio with mammography were statistically higher than those of mammography, no statistically higher than VTQ and VTQ with mammography.

CONCLUSION

The SWV ratio can improve the sensitivity without sacrificing diagnostic specificity in the process of breast cancer diagnostic, provide a better diagnostic performance, and avoid unnecessary biopsy or surgery.

Diagnostic Performance of Adjunctive Imaging Modalities Compared to Mammography Alone in Women with Non-Dense and Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of mammography (MG) alone versus MG combined with adjunctive imaging modalities, including handheld ultrasound (HHUS), automated breast ultrasound (ABUS), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with non-dense and dense breasts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases were searched up to October 2019. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the studies.

RESULTS

In dense breasts, adding adjunctive modalities significantly increased cancer detection rates (CDRs): HHUS (relative risk [RR] = 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.86; P = .0005); ABUS (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.16-1.78; P = .0008); DBT (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14-1.67; P = .001); CEM (RR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69; P = .003); and MRI (RR = 2.16; 95% CI, 1.81-2.58; P < .00001). The recall rate was significantly increased by HHUS (RR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.89-2.17; P < .00001), ABUS (RR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.81-1.99; P < .00001), and MRI (RR = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.73-4.25; P < .0001), but not by DBT (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.36; P = .15). In non-dense breasts, HHUS and MRI showed significant increases in CDRs but not DBT: HHUS (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P = .04); MRI (RR = 1.78; 95% CI, 1.14-2.77; P = .01); and DBT (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.13-1.75; P = .08). The recall rate was also significantly increased by HHUS (RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28-1.59; P < .00001) and MRI (RR = 3.01; 95% CI, 1.68-5.39; P = .0002), whereas DBT showed a non-significant reduction (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05; P = .12).

CONCLUSION

Adding adjunctive modalities to MG increases CDRs in women with dense and non-dense breasts. Ultrasound and MRI increase recall rates across all breast densities; however, MRI results in higher values for both CDRs and recall rates.

Follow-Up Intervals for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions on Screening Ultrasound in Screening and Tertiary Referral Centers

Objective

To assess the appropriate follow-up interval, and rate and timepoint of cancer detection in women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3 lesions on screening ultrasonography (US) according to the type of institution.

Materials and Methods

A total of 1451 asymptomatic women who had negative or benign findings on screening mammogram, BI-RADS 3 assessment on screening US, and at least 6 months of follow-up were included. The median follow-up interval was 30.8 months (range, 6.8–52.9 months). The cancer detection rate, cancer detection timepoint, risk factors, and clinicopathological characteristics were compared between the screening and tertiary centers. Nominal variables were compared using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test and continuous variables were compared using the independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

In 1451 women, 19 cancers (1.3%) were detected; two (0.1%) were diagnosed at 6 months and 17 (1.2%) were diagnosed after 12.3 months. The malignancy rates were both 1.3% in the screening (9 of 699) and tertiary (10 of 752) centers. In the screening center, all nine cancers were invasive cancers and diagnosed after 12.3 months. In the tertiary center, two were ductal carcinomas in situ and eight were invasive cancers. Two of the invasive cancers were diagnosed at 6 months and the remaining eight cancers newly developed after 13.1 months.

Conclusion

One-year follow-up rather than 6-month follow-up may be suitable for BI-RADS 3 lesions on screening US found in screening centers. However, more caution is needed regarding similar findings in tertiary centers where 6-month follow-up may be more appropriate.

Is Ultrasound an Accurate Alternative for Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening in an Asian Population? A Meta-Analysis

In Asian countries, ultrasound has been proposed as a possible alternative for mammography in breast cancer screening because of its superiority in dense breasts, accessibility and low costs. This research aimed to meta-analyze the evidence for the diagnostic performance of ultrasound compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in Asian women. PubMed, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for studies that concurrently compared mammography and ultrasound in 2000-2019. Data extraction and risk of bias were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity. Bivariate random models were used to generate pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). In total, 4424 studies were identified of which six studies met the inclusion criteria with a sample size of 124,425 women. The pooled mean prevalence of the included studies was 3.7‱ (range: 1.2-5.7‱). The pooled sensitivity of mammography was significantly higher than that of ultrasound (0.81 [95% CI 0.71-0.88] versus 0.65 [95% CI 0.58-0.72], p = 0.03), but no significant differences were found in specificity (0.98 [95% CI: 0.94-1.00] versus 0.99 [95% CI: 0.97-1.00], p = 0.65). In conclusion, based on the currently available data on sensitivity alone, there is no indication that ultrasound can replace mammography in breast cancer screening in Asian women.

Survival Rates of Breast Cancer Patients Aged 40 to 49 Years according to Detection Modality in Korea: Screening Ultrasound versus Mammography

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the survival rates of Korean females aged 40 to 49 years with breast cancer detected by supplemental screening ultrasound (US) or screening mammography alone.

Materials and Methods

This single-institution retrospective study included 240 patients with breast cancer (mean age, 45.1 ± 2.8 years) detected by US or mammography who had undergone breast surgery between 2003 and 2008. Medical records were reviewed for clinicopathologic characteristics and detection methods. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with breast cancer in the US and mammography groups using the log-rank test. Multivariable cox regression analysis was used to identify independent variables associated with DFS and OS.

Results

Among the 240 cases of breast cancer, 43 were detected by supplemental screening US and 197 by screening mammography (mean follow-up: 7.4 years, 93.3% with dense breasts). There were 19 recurrences and 16 deaths, all occurring in the mammography group. While the US group did not differ from the mammography group in tumor stage, the patients in this group were more likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy than the mammography group. The US group also showed better DFS (p = 0.016); however, OS did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.058). In the multivariable analysis, the US group showed a lower risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.097; 95% confidence interval, 0.001–0.705) compared to the mammography group.

Conclusion

Our study found that Korean females aged 40–49 years with US-detected breast cancer showed better DFS than those with mammography-detected breast cancer. However, there were no statistically significant differences in OS.

Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (P-US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental ultrasound (S-US) screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM).

Methods

Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for P-US or S-US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), proportion of invasive cancers among screening-detected cancers (ProIC), and proportion of node-negative cancers among screening-detected invasive cancers (ProNNIC).

Results

Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 studies in which S-US screening was used after negative MAM and 11 joint screening studies in which both primary MAM (P-MAM) and P-US were used. Meta-analyses revealed that S-US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82 to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 93% (95% CIs: 89 to 96%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 3.0/1000 (95% CIs: 1.8/1000 to 4.6/1000), RR of 8.8% (95% CIs: 5.0 to 13.4%), BR of 3.9% (95% CIs: 2.7 to 5.4%), ProIC of 73.9% (95% CIs: 49.0 to 93.7%), and ProNNIC of 70.9% (95% CIs: 46.0 to 91.6%). Compared with P-MAM screening, P-US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.5% (95% CIs:0.6 to 2.3%), P = 0.001] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [16.3% (95% CIs: 10.6 to 22.1%), P < 0.001]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNNIC.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests that S-US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM. P-US screening has shown to be comparable to P-MAM screening in women with dense breasts in terms of sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and biopsy rate, but with higher recall rates and higher detection rates for invasive cancers.

Does three-dimensional functional infrared imaging improve breast cancer detection based on digital mammography in women with dense breasts?

Purpose

We aimed to estimate the incremental cancer detection rate achieved by adding three-dimensional functional infrared imaging (3DIRI) to digital mammography in women with dense breasts.

Materials and methods

In this prospective study conducted between December 2014 and April 2016, 1727 women (median age 56) with percentage volumetric breast density > 6% were recruited at routine screening mammography to undergo additional 3DIRI. The 3DIRI findings were classified as negative or positive. Women with a negative mammography but positive 3DIRI were referred to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, whereas all other women underwent routine follow-up based on the mammography finding. Diagnosis of breast cancer was verified by histopathologic examination. The number of women diagnosed with a malignancy formed the basis of our statistical analysis.

Results

Mammography detected 7 cancers in 7 women. Of 1692 women with negative mammography, 222 women (13%) had a positive 3DIRI of which 219 underwent MRI. An additional 6 cancers were identified in 5 women, increasing the diagnostic yield from 7 of 1727 (0.41%) to 12 of 1727 (0.69%). The incremental cancer detection rate associated with using 3DIRI to select women for MRI was 5 of 222 (22.5 additional cancers per 1000).

Conclusion

The use of 3DIRI to select women for an additional MRI can result in the detection of additional cancers in women with dense breasts, but at the expense of additional false positives and considerably lower positive predictive value of the combined examinations. Additional studies are necessary to evaluate the role of 3DIRI as an adjunct to mammography.

Key Points

• Use of three-dimensional functional infrared imaging to select women for an MRI in addition to screening mammography has the potential to improve breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-019-06248-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Breast cancer diagnosis in a specialised breast clinic: Are cancers detected by ultrasound alone less aggressive?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the way breast cancer is diagnosed and its prognostic features.

METHODS

We studied new primary invasive and non-invasive breast cancers (670) diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 where detection included at least clinical examination, mammography and breast ultrasound (BUS). The cancers were classified into six Diagnostic Groups according to the results of each modality.

RESULTS

Overall, 79% of cancers were positive on mammography, but another 20% were diagnosed on BUS after a negative mammogram. The largest group (37.6% of cases), had all three modalities positive (Group 1). BUS was the only modality positive in 14.6% (Group 4). Mammography alone was positive in 21.2%, of which 73.9% were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Invasive lobular carcinoma comprised 9.6% of the groups where mammography was positive, but 16.5% of the groups where mammography was negative and BUS positive. Dense breast tissue was more common in the groups where mammography was negative and BUS positive. Invasive cancers comprised 82.7% of Group 4 and 95.2% of Group 1. For those in Group 4, the average size (10.2 mm) and the percentages with lymphovascular invasion (11.1%), lymph node involvement (17.3%) and poor differentiation (12.3%) were less than half the corresponding figures for Group 1 (27.3 mm, 35%, 44%, 44%).

CONCLUSION

This study illustrates the complementary benefits of mammography and BUS, especially where breast density is high. Tumours diagnosed by BUS alone had better prognostic features in terms of size, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node status, differentiation and hormone receptors, compared with cancers where all three modalities were positive.

Follow-up interval for probably benign breast lesions on screening ultrasound in women at average risk for breast cancer with dense breasts

Background Women at high risk for breast cancer and women at average risk have different pretest probabilities. Probably benign lesions on screening ultrasound (US) should be assessed and managed differently for these two risk groups. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of short-term follow-up for probably benign lesions on screening US in women at average risk for breast cancer with dense breasts. Material and Methods A total of 445 women at average risk for breast cancer with probably benign lesions on screening US, dense breasts, and negative or benign mammography results were included. Women were classified into the six-month group (n = 345) or 12-month group (n = 100) according to when the first follow-up was performed (3-9 months or 9-15 months). The cancer detection rate, frequencies of newly developed lesions and progressed lesions, and biopsy rate were compared. Results There were no malignancies from three to 15 months. Three cancers newly developed after 15 months. One was a 3-mm ductal carcinoma in situ and two were 10-mm and 18-mm invasive ductal carcinoma without lymph node metastasis. The frequency of newly developed lesions and progressed lesions and biopsy rate were not significantly different between the six-month and 12-month groups ( P = 0.320, 0.621, and >0.999). Conclusion A follow-up at 12 months can be considered for probably benign lesions on screening US in women at average risk for breast cancer with dense breasts. However, a large series prospective study is needed before clinical application.

Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mammography is less effective in detecting cancer in dense than in fatty breasts.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic search in PubMed to identify studies on women with dense breasts who underwent screening with mammography supplemented with ultrasound. A meta-analysis was undertaken on the proportion of cancers detected only by ultrasound, out of all screen-detected cancers, and the proportion of women with negative mammography who were referred for assessment following ultrasound screening.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. The proportion of total cancers detected only by ultrasound was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.27-0.31), consistent with an approximately 40% increase in the detection of cancers compared to mammography. In the studied populations, this translated into an additional 3.8 (95% CI: 3.4-4.2) screen-detected cases per 1000 mammography-negative women. About 13% (32/248) of cancers were in situ from 17 studies with information on this subgroup. Ultrasound approximately doubled the referral for assessment in three studies with these data.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies have consistently shown an increased detection of breast cancer by supplementary ultrasound screening. An inclusion of supplementary ultrasound into routine screening will need to consider the availability of ultrasound and diagnostic assessment capacities.

Necessity of Axillary Scanning After Negative Finding on Both Mammography and Subsequent Breast Ultrasound

The purpose of our study was to assess the cancer detection rate and positive predictive value (PPV) for incidentally detected abnormal axillary lymph nodes with negative mammography and subsequent breast ultrasound (US). We included 7039 screened patients (mean age, 52 y) from January 2012 to March 2015 with negative mammography and subsequent breast US results. In two patients with positive lymph nodes, neither were from breast malignancy. The calculated cancer detection rate, PPV for biopsy and axillary biopsy rate was 0.3 per 1000 axillary US, 14.3% and 0.2%. Cancer rates for patients with a family or personal operation history, with cancer history and with no family/operation/cancer history were 0%, 0.1% and 0.2%, respectively. Our results indicate that the cancer detection rate and PPV for US were too low to recommend routine axillary scanning including screening breast US in patients with negative mammography and subsequent breast US, especially with no history of any cancers.

Role of BI-RADS Ultrasound Subcategories 4A to 4C in Predicting Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasound (US) categorization revised in 2013 by the American College of Radiology resulted in unquestionable standardization of reports and confirmed category 3 and 5 as benign and malignant lesions, respectively. In contrast, suspected images (category 4) have subcategorization criteria, although theses have been detailed difficult to apply. The aim of the present study was to determine the role of the US 4A to 4C BI-RADS subcategories in predicting malignancy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of diagnostic tests to estimate the performance of the US BI-RADS categorization to clearly differentiate benign from malignant lesions. A total of 975 US examinations performed at the Hospital Femina, Grupo Hospitalar Conceição teaching hospitals from January 2012 through March 2015 were included in the present study. The US BI-RADS lexicon was used to classify the examination findings. Suspicious lesions underwent core needle biopsy, and the US and histology reports were compared to determine the performance using receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Overall, the BI-RADS US categorization showed good discriminating accuracy with a receiver operating characteristic curve of 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88%-93%). However, BI-RADS subcategory 4b had a positive predictive value of 25% (95% CI, 20%-31%) and subcategory 4A had a positive predictive value of only 6% (95% CI, 3.5%-9.8%).

CONCLUSION

Our results have shown that US BI-RADS subcategories 4A and 4B are clearly unfit for use in screening tests, because they cannot rule out the need for biopsy. Therefore, management will not be improved by subcategorizing category 4, because all suspicious lesions will still require definite biopsy.

Synergy in combining findings from mammography and ultrasonography in detecting malignancy in women with higher density breasts and lesions over 2 cm in Albania

AIM OF THE STUDY

To provide evidence of the synergy of combining findings from mammography (MM) and ultrasonography (US) in detecting malignancy in women with high-density breasts.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 245 women were screened for breast cancer using both mammography and ultrasonography at the American Hospital in Tirana during 2013-2014. The data was used to identify possible benefits in detecting malignancy, by combining the findings of MM and US and confirming them with those of the biopsy. Data on age, breast density, BI-RADS classification, and biopsy confirmations were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Out of the 245 women, 36 biopsies were taken (17 for women classified BI-RADS 4 and 5; 19 for women with BI-RADS 3 that had grown in size from the previous examination). The accuracy in detecting malignancy for low-density-breast women was 90% for MM, 70% for US, and 90% for combined. For high-density breasts, the accuracy was 65% for MM, 79% for US, and 82% for combined findings. Multivariate analysis indicates that high-density-breast women who have a malignant finding in at least one of the examinations (MM or US) are 24 times more likely (p = 0.039) to have a positive finding in biopsy for malignancy. The odds increased 32 times for lesions over 2 cm (p = 0.056).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results indicate additional benefits of combining findings from MM and US for high-density-breast women. Further study is warranted in a larger population and for different kinds of cancer.

Lymphangiogenesis in Breast Cancer Correlates with Matrix Stiffness on Shear-Wave Elastography

PURPOSE

To correlate tumor stiffness and lymphangiogenesis in breast cancer and to find its clinical implications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 140 breast cancer patients were evaluated. Tumor stiffness was quantitatively measured by shear-wave elastography in preoperative ultrasound examination, calculated as mean elasticity value (kPa). Slides of resected breast cancer specimens were reviewed for most fibrotic area associated with tumor. D2-40 immunohistochemical staining was applied for fibrotic areas to detect the lymphatic spaces. Microlymphatic density, tumor stiffness, and clinicopathologic data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Higher elasticity value was associated with invasive size of tumor, microlymphatic density, histologic grade 3, absence of extensive intraductal component, presence of axillary lymph node metastasis, and Ki-67 labeling index (LI) in univariate regression analysis, and associated with Ki-67 LI and axillary lymph node metastasis in multivariate regression analysis. Microlymphatic density was associated histologic grade 3, mean elasticity value, and Ki-67 LI in univariate regression analysis. In multivariate regression analysis, microlymphatic density was correlated with mean elasticity value.

CONCLUSION

In breast cancer, tumor stiffness correlates with lymphangiogenesis and poor prognostic factors.