DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Efficacy of Four Imaging Instruments for Breast Cancer Screening

  • Mehnati, Parinaz (Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Tirtash, Maede Jafari (Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2015.10.06

Abstract

Sensitivity and specificity are the two most important indicators in selection of medical imaging devices for cancer screening. Breast images taken by conventional or digital mammography, ultrasound, MRI and optical mammography were collected from 2,143,852 patients. They were then studied and compared for sensitivity and specificity results. Optical mammography had the highest sensitivity (p<0.001 and p<0.006) except with MRI. Digital mammography had the highest specificity for breast cancer imaging. A comparison of specificity between digital mammography and optical mammography was significant (p<0.021). If two or more breast diagnostic imaging tests are requested the overall sensitivity and specificity will increase. In this literature review study patients at high-risk of breast cancer were studied beside normal or sensitive women. The image modality performance of each breast test was compared for each.

Keywords

Sensitivity;specificity;breast imaging;ultrasound;MRI;digital/optical mammography

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Tabriz University of Medical Sciences

References

  1. 2014a. American Cancer Society recommendations for early breast cancer detection in women without breast symptoms [Online]. Available: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/breastcancerearlydetection/breast-cancer-early-detection-acs-recs.
  2. 2014b. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast cancer screening and diagnosis [Online]. Available: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#breast_screening.
  3. 2014c. Sensitivity and Specificity for 2,061,691 Screening Mammography Examinations from 2004 - 2008 -- based on BCSC data through 2009 [Online]. Available: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/benchmarks/screening/2009/tableSensSpec.html.
  4. Akbari ME, Haghighatkhah H, Shafiee M, et al (2012). Mammography and ultrasonography reports compared with tissue diagnosis--an evidence based study in Iran, 2010. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 1907-10. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.5.1907
  5. Arena F, Barone C, DiCicco T (2003). Use of digital infrared imaging in enhanced breast cancer detection and monitoring of the clinical response to treatment. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2003. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, 2003, 1129-32.
  6. Arora N, Martins D, Ruggerio D, et al (2008). Effectiveness of a noninvasive digital infrared thermal imaging system in the detection of breast cancer. Am J Surg, 196, 523-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.06.015
  7. Athanasiou A, Vanel D, Fournier L, et al (2007). Optical mammography: a new technique for visualizing breast lesions in women presenting non palpable BIRADS 4-5 imaging findings: preliminary results with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Cancer Imaging, 7, 34. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2007.0006
  8. Baltzer PA, Benndorf M, Dietzel M, et al (2010). Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions. Eur Radiol, 20, 1101-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5
  9. Bassett LW (2004). Digital mammography: practical issues in implementation. 1-5.
  10. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al (2012). Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. Jama, 307, 1394-404. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.388
  11. Busch DR, Guo W, Choe R, et al (2010). Computer aided automatic detection of malignant lesions in diffuse optical mammography. Medical Physics, 37, 1840-9. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3314075
  12. Chance B, Nioka S, Zhang J, et al (2005). Breast cancer detection based on incremental biochemical and physiological properties of breast cancers: A six-year, two-site Study1. Acad Radiol, 12, 925-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2005.04.016
  13. Cutler M (1929). Transillumination as an aid in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Surgery Gynecol Obstet, 48, 721-9.
  14. Devolli-Disha E, Manxhuka-Kerliu S, Ymeri H, et al (2009). Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density. Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences/Udruzenje basicnih mediciniskih znanosti. Assoc Basic Med Sci, 9, 131-6.
  15. Egorov V, Sarvazyan AP (2008). Mechanical imaging of the breast. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 27, 1275-87. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2008.922192
  16. Fang Q, Carp SA, Selb J, et al (2009). Combined optical imaging and mammography of the healthy breast: optical contrast derived from breast structure and compression. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 28, 30-42. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2008.925082
  17. Fatima N, Zaman MU, Uddin Q, et al (2011). Accuracy of mammography and ultrasound for detecting breast cancer at a breast care clinic in Karachi, Pakistan. J Biomed Graphic Comput, 1, 44-50.
  18. Goss PE, Sierra S (1998). Current perspectives on radiationinduced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 16, 338-47.
  19. Granader EJ, Dwamena B, Carlos RC (2008). MRI and mammography surveillance of women at increased risk for breast cancer: recommendations using an evidence-based approach. Academic Radiol, 15, 1590-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.06.006
  20. Hagen AI, Kvistad KA, Maehle L, et al (2007). Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast, 16, 367-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2007.01.006
  21. Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, et al (2003). Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. Am J Roentgenol, 180, 935-40. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800935
  22. Kopans DB (2007). Breast imaging, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  23. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al (2004). Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. New England J Med, 351, 427-37. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031759
  24. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al (2005). Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 23, 8469-76. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.00.4960
  25. Leach MO, Boggis C, Dixon A, et al (2005). Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet, 365, 1769-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1
  26. Leff DR, Warren OJ, Enfield LC, et al (2008). Diffuse optical imaging of the healthy and diseased breast: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 108, 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9582-z
  27. Madjar H (2001). [Advantages and limitations of breast ultrasound]. Gynakol Geburt Runds, 42, 185-90.
  28. Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, et al (2013). Metaanalysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. J National Cancer Inst, 105, 321-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs528
  29. Mehnati P, Alizadeh H (2014). Comparison Between Film-Screen and Digital Mammography for Woman Breast Cancer Screening: Mean Glandular Dose. Acad J Cancer Res 7, 162-7.
  30. Michell M, Iqbal A, Wasan R, et al (2012). A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol, 67, 976-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2012.03.009
  31. Newell D, Nie K, Chen J-H, et al (2010). Selection of diagnostic features on breast MRI to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions using computer-aided diagnosis: differences in lesions presenting as mass and non-mass-like enhancement. Eur Radiol, 20, 771-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1616-y
  32. Parisky Y, Sardi A, Hamm R, et al (2003). Efficacy of computerized infrared imaging analysis to evaluate mammographically suspicious lesions. Am J Roentgenol, 180, 263-9. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.1.1800263
  33. Park SH, Moon WK, Cho N, et al (2012). Comparison of diffusion-weighted MR imaging and FDG PET/CT to predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol, 22, 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2236-x
  34. Pinker-Domenig K, Bogner W, Gruber S, et al (2012). High resolution MRI of the breast at 3 T: which BI-$RADS^{(R)}$ descriptors are most strongly associated with the diagnosis of breast cancer? Eur Radiol, 22, 322-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2256-6
  35. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al (2005). Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breastcancer screening. New Engl J Med, 353, 1773-83. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911
  36. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al (2008). Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiol, 246, 376. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461070200
  37. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al (2013). BREAST IMAG. Radiol, 266, 104-13. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120674
  38. Riabi HA, Mehnati P, Mesbahi A (2010). Evaluation of mean glandular dose in a full-field digital mammography unit in Tabriz, Iran. Radiation Protect Dosim, 142, 222-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq218
  39. Ronckers CM, Erdmann CA, Land CE (2005). Radiation and breast cancer: a review of current evidence. Breast Cancer Res, 7, 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr970
  40. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, et al (2011). Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrastenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk italian 1 study): final results. Investigative Radiol, 46, 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181f3fcdf
  41. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2013). Cancer statistics, 2013. Ca Cancer J Clin, 63, 11-30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21166
  42. Sim L, Hendriks J, Fook-Chong S (2004). Breast ultrasound in women with familial risk of breast cancer. Ann Academy Med Singapore, 33, 600-6.
  43. Skaane P (2009). Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol, 50, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850802563269
  44. Ting KM (2010). Sensitivity and specificity. Encyclopedia Machine Learning, 901-2.
  45. Valente SA, Levine GM, Silverstein MJ, et al (2012). Accuracy of predicting axillary lymph node positivity by physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Surg Oncol, 19, 1825-30. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-2200-7
  46. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, et al (2008). Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann internal Med, 148, 671-9. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-9-200805060-00007
  47. Warner E, Plewes D, Shumak R, et al (2001). Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 19, 3524-31.
  48. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al (2004). Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. Jama, 292, 1317-25. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.11.1317
  49. Wishart G, Campisi M, Boswell M, et al (2010). The accuracy of digital infrared imaging for breast cancer detection in women undergoing breast biopsy. Eur J Surgical Oncol (EJSO), 36, 535-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.04.003
  50. Zahl P-H, Strand BH, Mæhlen J (2004). Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. Bmj, 328, 921-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38044.666157.63
  51. Zhang H, Qin D, Yang Z, et al (2014). Comparison of diffuse optical tomography, ultrasound elastography and mammography in the diagnosis of breast tumors. Ultrasound Med Biol, 40, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2013.09.008

Cited by

  1. Relation between Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns and Breast Cancer Risk: Considering BMI, Compressed Breast Thickness and Age of Women in Tabriz, Iran vol.17, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.4.2259