在真实世界的临床环境中,使用自动乳腺 US 和乳腺 X 射线造影术与手持式 US 和乳腺 X 射线造影术对乳房致密的女性进行乳腺癌筛查。

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Breast Imaging Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1093/jbi/wbae039
Andrew J Winkelman, Kassandra Tulenko, Samantha H Epstein, Jonathan V Nguyen, Clay Ford, Matthew M Miller
{"title":"在真实世界的临床环境中,使用自动乳腺 US 和乳腺 X 射线造影术与手持式 US 和乳腺 X 射线造影术对乳房致密的女性进行乳腺癌筛查。","authors":"Andrew J Winkelman, Kassandra Tulenko, Samantha H Epstein, Jonathan V Nguyen, Clay Ford, Matthew M Miller","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbae039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew J Winkelman, Kassandra Tulenko, Samantha H Epstein, Jonathan V Nguyen, Clay Ford, Matthew M Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jbi/wbae039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Breast Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Breast Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们比较了两种乳腺癌筛查方法,即自动乳腺 US(ABUS)与当日乳腺 X 光摄影(ABUS/MG)和手持 US(HHUS)与当日乳腺 X 光摄影(HHUS/MG)在致密乳房女性中的表现,以更好地了解 ABUS 和 HHUS 在实际临床环境中的相对效用:在这项经机构审查委员会批准的回顾性观察研究中,我们对 2013 年 5 月至 2021 年 9 月期间在本机构进行的所有 ABUS/MG 和 HHUS/MG 筛查检查进行了评估。使用费雪精确检验比较了两种筛查方法的 BI-RADS 类别、活检病理结果和诊断检测特征(如灵敏度、特异性):本研究共纳入了 1120 名患有致密乳腺的女性,其中 852 人接受了 ABUS/MG,268 人接受了 HHUS/MG。ABUS/MG和HHUS/MG的敏感性分别为100%(5/5)和75.0%(3/4),差异无统计学意义(P = .444)。在我们的患者群体中,ABUS/MG方法的特异性(97.4% [825/847] vs 94.3% [249/264];P = .028)、准确性(97.4% [830/852] vs 94.0% [252/268];P = .011)和活检建议率(3.2% [27/852] vs 6.7% [18/268];P = .019)略高于HHUS/MG方法:我们的研究结果表明,在实际临床环境中,ABUS/MG 与 HHUS/MG 作为致密乳房女性乳腺癌筛查方法的性能相当,ABUS/MG 方法与 HHUS/MG 方法相比,灵敏度相似,特异性略高。患者经验和医生时间等其他变量可能有助于确定在特定临床环境中采用哪种成像方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
81
期刊最新文献
Performance of Abbreviated Breast MRI in High-Risk Patients in a Tertiary Care Academic Medical Center. Developing a Career as a Clinician-Educator in Breast Imaging. Unknown Case: Non-mass Enhancement on Baseline MRI. Developing Financial Acumen as a Breast Imaging Radiologist. Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Breast Cancer Screening Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1