4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 221, Issue 3, Pages 641-649

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2213010364

Keywords

breast, parenchymal pattern; breast, US; breast neoplasms, diagnosis; breast neoplasms, US; breast radiography, quality assurance; cancer screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast ultrasonography (US) as an adjunct examination to mammography in asymptomatic women with dense (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density category 3 or 4) breast tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 1998 and April 2000, 1,862 patients with negative findings at clinical examinations, negative mammographic results, and breast tissue with BI-RADS category 3 or 4 density were evaluated with bilateral whole-breast US for occult cystic and solid masses, areas of architectural distortion, and acoustic shadowing. Suggestive findings were compared with tissue diagnoses from US-guided core biopsy specimens. US was initially performed by a US or a mammography technologist. The average time to perform the examination was approximately 10 minutes. Abnormal findings were corroborated by a fellowship-trained breast-imaging radiologist. RESULTS: In the 1,862 women examined with bilateral whole-breast US, 57 biopsies were recommended in 56 patients; follow-up data were available in 51 of the 56 patients. Six breast cancers were detected (cancer detection rate, 0.3%). CONCLUSION: Bilateral whole-breast US, when performed in patients with dense (BI-RADS category 3 or 4 density) breast tissue, is useful in detecting breast cancer not discovered with mammography or clinical breast examination. The 0.3% cancer detection rate compares favorably with that of screening mammography and with that in previously published studies involving bilateral whole-breast US.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available