The Additional Diagnostic Value of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer | Breast Cancer | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.57. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Harris  JRLippman  MEVeronesi  UWillett  W Breast cancer (1).  N Engl J Med. 1992;327319- 328Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Smith  DN Breast ultrasound.  Radiol Clin North Am. 2001;39485- 497Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Skaane  P Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors.  Acta Radiol Suppl. 1999;4201- 47Google Scholar
4.
Jackson  VPReynolds  HEHawes  DR Sonography of the breast.  Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1996;17460- 475Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Flobbe  Kvan der Linden  ESKessels  AGvan Engelshoven  JM Diagnostic value of radiological breast imaging in a non-screening population.  Int J Cancer. 2001;92616- 618Google ScholarCrossref
6.
Hillman  BJ New imaging technology and cost containment.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162503- 506Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Hardy  JRPowles  TJJudson  I  et al.  How many tests are required in the diagnosis of palpable breast abnormalities?  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1990;2148- 152Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Moss  HABritton  PDFlower  CDFreeman  AHLomas  DJWarren  RM How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population?  Clin Radiol. 1999;54676- 682Google ScholarCrossref
9.
Ozdemir  AOznur  IIVural  G  et al.  Tl-201 scintigraphy, mammography and ultrasonography in the evaluation of palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions: a correlative study.  Eur J Radiol. 1997;24145- 154Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Ruhland  FHeinrich  JBudner  MJeschke  A Diagnostic value of mammography and breast ultrasound for clinically occult lesions of the breast [in German].  Geburtshilfe-Frauenheilkunde. 2000;60104- 110Google Scholar
11.
Skaane  PEngedal  KSkjennald  A Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging.  Acta Radiol. 1997;38 ((pt 1)) 497- 502Google Scholar
12.
Zonderland  HMCoerkamp  EGHermans  Jvan de Vijver  MJvan Voorthuisen  AE Diagnosis of breast cancer.  Radiology. 1999;213413- 422Google ScholarCrossref
13.
American College of Radiology, Assessment Categories: Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (Illustrated BI-RADS).  Reston, Va American College of Radiology1995;
14.
Mendelson  EBBerg  WAMerritt  CR Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound.  Semin Roentgenol. 2001;36217- 225Google ScholarCrossref
15.
Hanley  JAMcNeil  BJ A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.  Radiology. 1983;148839- 843Google Scholar
16.
Hanley  JAMcNeil  BJ The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.  Radiology. 1982;14329- 36Google Scholar
17.
Skaane  P The additional value of US to mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer: a prospective study.  Acta Radiol. 1999;40486- 490Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Mendelson  EBTobin  CE Critical pathways in using breast US.  Radiographics. 1995;15935- 945Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Duijm  LEMGuit  GLKoomen  ARWillebrand  D Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer.  Br J Cancer. 1997;76377- 381Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Hurd  TCEdge  SB Breast cancer imaging.  Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1999;81- 15Google Scholar
21.
Houssami  NIrwig  L Likelihood ratios for clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and fine needle biopsy in women with breast problems.  Breast. 1998;785- 89Google ScholarCrossref
22.
van Oord  JCvan der Vliet  AMThyn  CJMak  BHoogeboom  GJ The value of ultrasound mammography in palpable breast masses.  Rofo Fortschr Geb Röntgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 1991;15563- 66Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Kolb  TMLichy  JNewhouse  JH Occult cancer in women with dense breasts.  Radiology. 1998;207191- 199Google Scholar
24.
Kopans  DB Breast-cancer screening with ultrasonography.  Lancet. 1999;3542096- 2097Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Sackett  DLHaynes  RBTugwell  PGuyatt  GH Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa Lippincott Williams & Wilkins1991;
Original Investigation
May 26, 2003

The Additional Diagnostic Value of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Radiology (Drs Flobbe, Bosch, and van Engelshoven), Surgery (Drs Bosch, Beets, and von Meyenfeldt), and Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (Dr Kessels), Maastricht University Hospital; and the Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University (Dr Nelemans), Maastricht, the Netherlands. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(10):1194-1199. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.10.1194
Abstract

Background  The use of ultrasonography (US) in diagnostic breast imaging is increasing. Restricting US to subgroups of patients who benefit most would result in a more efficient and effective application. This study assessed the diagnostic value of US as an adjunct to mammography (MAM) and a clinical examination (CE) in the diagnosis of breast cancer and the feasibility of selecting subgroups of patients who benefit the most.

Methods  Between October 1, 1999, and August 1, 2000, all consecutive patients referred for breast imaging underwent additional US after MAM and a CE. Results were scored on a 5-point grading scale of increasing suggestion of malignancy. Pathologic results during 12 months of follow-up were used as the criterion standard. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis assessed the diagnostic value of US in the whole population and in subgroups of patients according to indication for referral and age.

Results  A total of 3835 breasts were examined in 2020 patients, with a 6.3% prevalence of breast cancer. Breast US detected 8 extra malignancies and correctly downgraded 332 cases from a positive to a negative diagnosis (ie, from a suggested malignancy to no malignancy). Receiver-operating characteristic curves showed a significant improvement in diagnostic value by adding US to MAM and a CE (area under the curve for CE + MAM + US vs CE + MAM, 0.99 vs 0.95; P = .002). The diagnostic yield improved significantly in patients referred for palpable breast lumps (P = .004) or referred from the National Breast Cancer Screening Program (P = .05). Less pronounced was the value in patients referred for other symptoms or for follow-up of a prior breast malignancy. When breast imaging of the contralateral breast or of asymptomatic patients referred for reassurance or follow-up of a prior benign lesion was performed, the value of additional US remained undefined because of the few malignancies found.

Conclusions  The systematic application of breast US improved the overall diagnostic yield. The diagnostic value increased most in patients with palpable breast lumps and in patients referred with abnormal screening MAM results.

×