Breast Cancer Screening With Automated Breast US and Mammography vs Handheld US and Mammography in Women With Dense Breasts in a Real-World Clinical Setting.

Autor: Winkelman AJ; Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA., Tulenko K; University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA., Epstein SH; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA., Nguyen JV; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA., Ford C; Senior Research Data Scientist/Statistics, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA., Miller MM; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of breast imaging [J Breast Imaging] 2024 Sep 11; Vol. 6 (5), pp. 493-501.
DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbae039
Abstrakt: Objective: We compared the performance of 2 breast cancer screening approaches, automated breast US (ABUS) with same-day mammography (ABUS/MG) and handheld US (HHUS) with same-day mammography (HHUS/MG), in women with dense breasts to better understand the relative usefulness of ABUS and HHUS in a real-world clinical setting.
Methods: In this institutional review board-approved, retrospective observational study, we evaluated all ABUS/MG and HHUS/MG screening examinations performed at our institution from May 2013 to September 2021. BI-RADS categories, biopsy pathology results, and diagnostic test characteristics (eg, sensitivity, specificity) were compared between the 2 screening approaches using Fisher's exact test.
Results: A total of 1120 women with dense breasts were included in this study, with 852 undergoing ABUS/MG and 268 undergoing HHUS/MG. The sensitivities of ABUS/MG and HHUS/MG were 100% (5/5) and 75.0% (3/4), respectively, which was not a statistically significant difference (P  = .444). The ABUS/MG approach demonstrated a slightly higher specificity (97.4% [825/847] vs 94.3% [249/264]; P = .028), higher accuracy (97.4% [830/852] vs 94.0% [252/268]; P = .011), and lower biopsy recommendation rate (3.2% [27/852] vs 6.7% [18/268]; P = .019) than the HHUS/MG approach in our patient population.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that ABUS/MG performs comparably with HHUS/MG as a breast cancer screening approach in women with dense breasts in a real-world clinical setting, with the ABUS/MG approach demonstrating a similar sensitivity and slightly higher specificity than the HHUS/MG approach. Additional variables, such as patient experience and physician time, may help determine which imaging approach to employ in specific clinical settings.
(© Society of Breast Imaging 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: