Adjunctive Ultrasonography Research Articles

The effects of breast density on the benefits of mammograms with adjunctive ultrasonography in breast screening.

Various efforts have been made to improve the accuracy of breast cancer screening. This study aimed to report differences in the contribution of ultrasonography to cancer screening assessments of dense and non-dense breasts. The participants in this study were 29,640 Japanese women in their 40s who underwent breast cancer screening at the Iwate Cancer Society between 2018 and 2021. This included women who chose mammography alone or mammography with adjunctive ultrasonography (overall assessment). They were classified into two groups according to the breast density in mammography: dense breasts and non-dense breasts. Recall rate, breast cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value of the two screening-type groups were evaluated for each breast density group. Of the 29,640 women analyzed, 18,861 (63.6%) underwent mammography alone and 10,779 (36.3%) were by overall assessments. The number of women recalled was higher in the overall assessment group than in the mammography-alone group (2.9% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.01). The proportion of women in whom breast cancer was detected was higher in the overall assessment group than in the mammography-alone group (0.31% [n = 33] vs. 0.15% [n = 28], p < 0.01). For non-dense breasts, there were no significant differences in either the recall rate or the breast cancer detection rate between those who underwent mammography alone and those who underwent overall assessment. Conversely, for dense breasts, the recall rate after mammography alone was lower than that after overall assessment (1.8% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.01), and the breast cancer detection rate was higher after overall assessment than after mammography alone (0.40% vs. 0.18%, p < 0.01). We found the benefits of adjunctive ultrasonography with mammography to differ depending on breast density. This could be used to tailor the selection of screening modalities to individuals.

Sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography without clinical breast examination among Japanese women aged 40-49years: analysis of data from the J-START results.

Current breast cancer screening programs worldwide offer only mammography for asymptomatic women, without clinical breast examination (CBE). The sensitivity and specificity of true asymptomatic screening mammography are important, especially in Japan. This study used data from the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START) results, and then calculated the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography without CBE among Japanese women aged 40-49years. The sensitivity and specificity of modern film mammography, performed biennially, among Japanese women aged 40-49years were 71.7% and 92.6%, respectively. The sensitivity of mammography alone was 47.4%. From the secondary analysis, the sensitivity of mammography alone was 44.1% for women with dense breasts and 34.8% for women with non-dense breasts. The sensitivity of mammography alone of 47.4% is too low. The low sensitivity of screening mammography for true asymptomatic Japanese women aged 40-49years places this population at an elevated risk, which can justify performing adjunctive ultrasonography.

Evaluation of Adjunctive Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women Aged 40-49 Years With Varying Breast Density Undergoing Screening Mammography

Mammography has limited accuracy in breast cancer screening. Ultrasonography, when used in conjunction with mammography screening, is helpful to detect early-stage and invasive cancers for asymptomatic women with dense and nondense breasts. To evaluate the performance of adjunctive ultrasonography with mammography for breast cancer screening, according to differences in breast density. This study is a secondary analysis of the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial. Between July 2007 and March 2011, asymptomatic women aged 40 to 49 years were enrolled in Japan. The present study used data from cases enrolled from the screening center in Miyagi prefecture during 2007 to 2020. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either mammography with ultrasonography (intervention group) or mammography alone (control group). Data analysis was performed from February to March 2020. Ultrasonography adjunctive to mammography for breast cancer screening regardless of breast density. Sensitivity, specificity, recall rates, biopsy rates, and characteristics of screen-detected cancers and interval breast cancers were evaluated between study groups and for each modality according to breast density. A total of 76 119 women were enrolled, and data for 19 213 women (mean [SD] age, 44.5 [2.8] years) from the Miyagi prefecture were analyzed; 9705 were randomized to the intervention group and 9508 were randomized to the control group. A total of 11 390 women (59.3%) had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts. Among the overall group, 130 cancers were found. Sensitivity was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (93.2% [95% CI, 87.4%-99.0%] vs 66.7% [95% CI, 54.4%-78.9%]; P < .001). Similar trends were observed in women with dense breasts (sensitivity in intervention vs control groups, 93.2% [95% CI, 85.7%-100.0%] vs 70.6% [95% CI, 55.3%-85.9%]; P < .001) and nondense breasts (sensitivity in intervention vs control groups, 93.1% [95% CI, 83.9%-102.3%] vs 60.9% [95% CI, 40.9%-80.8%]; P < .001). The rate of interval cancers per 1000 screenings was lower in the intervention group compared with the control group (0.5 cancers [95% CI, 0.1-1.0 cancers] vs 2.0 cancers [95% CI, 1.1-2.9 cancers]; P = .004). Within the intervention group, the rate of invasive cancers detected by ultrasonography alone was significantly higher than that for mammography alone in both dense (82.4% [95% CI, 56.6%-96.2%] vs 41.7% [95% CI, 15.2%-72.3%]; P = .02) and nondense (85.7% [95% CI, 42.1%-99.6%] vs 25.0% [95% CI, 5.5%-57.2%]; P = .02) breasts. However, sensitivity of mammography or ultrasonography alone did not exceed 80% across all breast densities in the 2 groups. Compared with the control group, specificity was significantly lower in the intervention group (91.8% [95% CI, 91.2%-92.3%] vs 86.8% [95% CI, 86.2%-87.5%]; P < .001). Recall rates (13.8% [95% CI, 13.1%-14.5%] vs 8.6% [95% CI, 8.0%-9.1%]; P < .001) and biopsy rates (5.5% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.0%] vs 2.1% [95% CI, 1.8%-2.4%]; P < .001) were significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group. In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, screening mammography alone demonstrated low sensitivity, whereas adjunctive ultrasonography was associated with increased sensitivity. These findings suggest that adjunctive ultrasonography has the potential to improve detection of early-stage and invasive cancers across both dense and nondense breasts. Supplemental ultrasonography should be considered as an appropriate imaging modality for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic women aged 40 to 49 years regardless of breast density. NIPH Clinical Trial Identifier: UMIN000000757.

Adjunctive Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging for Detecting Cancer in Women with Calcifications at Mammography.

Mammography detects calcium deposits sensitively, but the specificity for differentiating malignancy from benign calcifications is low. Thus, we investigated whether adjunctive breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) has incremental value for detecting cancer in women with suspicious calcifications detected by mammography, and compared BSGI with adjunctive ultrasonography (US). The medical records of women without a personal history of breast cancer who underwent mammography for breast evaluation from 2009 to 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients who had calcifications detected by mammography, with a result of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 3-5, underwent adjunctive US and BSGI and were included in this study. A total of 302 breast lesions in 266 women (mean age±standard deviation 49±9 years) were selected for this study. For detecting breast cancer using mammography plus BSGI, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating curve with 95% confidence intervals were 94% (91-96), 90% (86-93), 91% (87-94), 94% (90-96), and 0.92 (0.89-0.95), respectively. For mammography plus US, the respective values were 97% (94-98), 51% (46-57), 68% (63-73), 94% (90-96), and 0.74 (0.70-0.78). Adjunctive BSGI had higher specificity than adjunctive US without loss of sensitivity. This finding suggests that adjunctive BSGI may be a useful complementary initial imaging method to improve the detection of breast cancer in women who have calcifications with suspicious morphology at mammography.

Improved Performance of Adjunctive Ultrasonography After Mammography Screening for Breast Cancer Among Chinese Females

IntroductionUntil now, no studies have investigated whether women other than those with dense breasts are suitable for adjunctive ultrasonography after negative mammography, and investigated whether all women with negative mammography are suitable for adjunctive ultrasonography. MethodsBased on the Multi-modality Independent Screening Trial in China, a total of 31,918 women aged 45 to 65 years underwent both ultrasonography and mammography. Physicians performed ultrasonography and mammography separately and were blinded to each other's findings until their interpretations had been recorded. For both ultrasonography and mammography, suspicious results and those highly suggestive of a malignancy were confirmed by pathologic examination, whereas other results were confirmed by 1-year follow-up after initial screening. ResultsBased on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) assessments, 84 (84.8%) of 99 cancers were identified on mammography (detection rate, 2.6/1000), and 61 (61.6%) of 99 cancers were identified on ultrasonography (detection rate, 1.9/1000). Integrated mammography with ultrasonography identified 94 (95.0%) of 99 cancers, with an increment of 11.9% in cancer detection rate (from 2.6/1000 to 2.9/1000) (P < .05). Moreover, among women with BIRADS 3, adjunctive ultrasonography detected no cancers. All 10 additional cancers detected by adjunctive ultrasonography were from women with BIRADS 0 to 2, at a cost of 207 women with false positives. Additionally, dense breasts and benign breast disease were significantly associated with positive ultrasonography after BIRADS 0 to 2 (all P values < .05). ConclusionsAfter negative mammography, adjunctive ultrasonography should only be recommended for BIRADS 0 to 2 but not BIRADS 3, especially for women with dense breasts or benign breast disease.

Ultrasonography for neuraxial blocks: a review of the evidence.

This narrative review summarizes the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertaining to the use of adjunctive ultrasonography (US) for neuraxial blocks. The literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and PUBMED databases. For the MEDLINE and EMBASE searches, the MESH terms "ultrasonography" and key word "ultrasound" were queried; using the operator "and", they were combined with the MESH terms "neuraxial block," "epidural anesthesia," "epidural analgesia," "spinal anesthesia," "spinal analgesia," "intrathecal anesthesia," "intrathecal analgesia," "caudal anesthesia," and "caudal analgesia." For the PUBMED search, the search terms "ultrasound neuraxial," "ultrasound intrathecal," "ultrasound epidural" (limited to clinical trials), "ultrasound spinal" (limited to clinical trials), and "ultrasound caudal" (limited to clinical trials) were queried. Seventeen RCTs were retained for analysis. Compared to conventional palpation of landmarks, US assistance (i.e., preprocedural scanning) results in fewer needle passes/insertions and skin punctures for neuraxial blocks in obstetrical and surgical patients. These benefits seem most pronounced when expert operators carry out the sonographic exams and for patients displaying difficult spinal anatomy. Preliminary findings also suggest that US provides similar pain relief and functional improvement to fluoroscopy for epidural/caudal steroid injection in patients afflicted with chronic spinal pain. Although one trial demonstrated shorter needling time with US guidance (i.e., real-time scanning of needle advancement) compared to US assistance, these findings require further validation. Published reports of RCTs provide evidence to formulate limited recommendations regarding the use of adjunctive US for neuraxial blocks. Further well-designed RCTs are warranted.

Current Status and Prospects of Combined Assessment Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammography in Our Institution

Current Status and Prospects of Combined Assessment Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammography in Our Institution

Practical Aspects of Combined Assessment (Separate Method) Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammography in Our Institution

Practical Aspects of Combined Assessment (Separate Method) Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammography in Our Institution

Practical Aspects of Combined Assessment Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammography in Our Institution

Practical Aspects of Combined Assessment Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammography in Our Institution

Verification of a Method for Estimating the Location Correlation of Lesions Revealed by Breast Cancer Screening with Adjunctive Ultrasonography and Mammography

Verification of a Method for Estimating the Location Correlation of Lesions Revealed by Breast Cancer Screening with Adjunctive Ultrasonography and Mammography

Roles and Methods of Combined Assessment Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammography

J-START の結果も公表され，今後，マンモグラフィ（MG）・乳房超音波（US）併用検診の開始に期待が高まっている。併用検診を開始するにあたって，一番重要なことは「総合判定」を実施することである。総合判定とはMG とUS の結果を総合的に判定して，「要精査」とするのか，「精査不要」とするのかを決定する方法である。 総合判定の実施方法として「同時併用方式」と「分離併用方式」がある。MG を参照しながらUSを実施する「同時併用方式」の方が腫瘤などの確認ができるので精度は上がる。その受診者が高濃度乳房（dense breast）であるかどうかの確認もできる。しかしながら，人的な問題，施設・出張の環境などの問題で同時併用はできないこともある。「分離併用方式（MG を参照せずにUS を実施する方法）」であっても総合判定をする価値はあるので，実現可能な方法で導入してほしい。また同じ施設で両者を実施，判定する「一施設方式」と違う施設で実施，判定する「二施設方式」がある。各地方の特性により方法はさまざまであると思われるが，それも現行の方式に従い，導入しやすい方法で実施することが重要である。一番の障害になると思われるのが，報告書である。報告書が紙である場合には総合判定の用紙を追加する，あるいは総合判定の欄を追加するという簡単な作業で実施できるが，コンピュータを用いたレポーティングシステムの変更は予算も必要となり，難しい側面もある。しかしながら，その改良により円滑な検診実施が可能になるので，是非取り組んでいただきたい。われわれの施設のレポーティングシステムを紹介し，今後導入される施設の参考にしていただきたい。

Combined Assessment Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammmography : What to Do and What to Know

Combined Assessment Using Adjunctive Ultrasonography with Mammmography : What to Do and What to Know

Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial

Mammography is the only proven method for breast cancer screening that reduces mortality, although it is inaccurate in young women or women with dense breasts. We investigated the efficacy of adjunctive ultrasonography. Between July, 2007, and March, 2011, we enrolled asymptomatic women aged 40-49 years at 42 study sites in 23 prefectures into the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START). Eligible women had no history of any cancer in the previous 5 years and were expected to live for more than 5 years. Randomisation was done centrally by the Japan Clinical Research Support Unit. Participants were randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to undergo mammography and ultrasonography (intervention group) or mammography alone (control group) twice in 2 years. The primary outcome was sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and stage distribution at the first round of screening. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number UMIN000000757. Of 72,998 women enrolled, 36,859 were assigned to the intervention group and 36,139 to the control group. Sensitivity was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (91·1%, 95% CI 87·2-95·0 vs 77·0%, 70·3-83·7; p=0·0004), whereas specificity was significantly lower (87·7%, 87·3-88·0 vs 91·4%, 91·1-91·7; p<0·0001). More cancers were detected in the intervention group than in the control group (184 [0·50%] vs 117 [0·32%], p=0·0003) and were more frequently stage 0 and I (144 [71·3%] vs 79 [52·0%], p=0·0194). 18 (0·05%) interval cancers were detected in the intervention group compared with 35 (0·10%) in the control group (p=0·034). Adjunctive ultrasonography increases sensitivity and detection rate of early cancers. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan.

Adjunctive ultrasonography in breast cancer screening

Adjunctive ultrasonography in breast cancer screening

Adjunctive Ultrasonography to Minimize Iodinated Contrast Administration During Carotid Artery Stenting:A Randomized Trial

To report a single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial that compared contrast use during ultrasound-assisted carotid artery stenting (CAS) to CAS procedures without ultrasound. Between August 2010 and November 2011, 22 patients (18 men; mean age 72.8 years, range 62-84) with 25 severe symptomatic (n=3) or asymptomatic (n=22) carotid stenoses undergoing an endovascular intervention were randomly allocated (~1.1) to ultrasonography-assisted (n=13) or stand-alone (n=12) CAS. The primary endpoints were contrast use and number of selective cerebral injections. Secondary endpoints were procedure time, fluoroscopy time, any stroke, renal function assessment, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death. In the study period, 23 of 25 scheduled CAS procedures (12 ultrasound-assisted, 11 control) were completed in 20 patients; 2 procedures were aborted owing to friable plaque and difficult guidewire access, respectively. There were no deaths, stroke, MACE, or precipitation of dialysis-dependent renal failure in either group. Iodinated contrast usage was reduced by 61% (45.4±24.4 vs. 17.8±11.9 mL, p=0.002) and number of selective cerebral contrast injections by 49% (8.3 vs. 4.2, p=0.002). Neither time taken to complete the procedure (32.5 vs. 35.4 minutes, p=0.38) nor fluoroscopy time (14.5 vs. 13.9 minutes, p=0.54) differed significantly between the groups. Creatinine levels remained stable after CAS and did not differ between groups. Ultrasonography-assisted CAS is feasible and safe. Its use can significantly lower the usage of iodinated contrast and the number of selective cerebral circulation injections while not prolonging the length of the procedure or the fluoroscopy time.

Adjunctive ultrasonography during carotid artery stenting to minimize iodine contrast use

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients with chronic kidney disease carries a significant risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. We report a case of CAS with adjunctive sonography to reduce the amount of contrast medium during angiography. A 71-year-old man presented with a symptomatic right carotid stenosis. He was selected for CAS due to significant medical comorbidity, which included severe renal impairment. A preoperative noncontrast CT was performed to assess anatomical suitability and to plan arch vessel cannulation. We undertook CAS with the use of intraoperative ultrasound. Sonography was used to monitor the manipulation of wires, catheters, and stents. Four milliliters of contrast was required to complete the procedure successfully with no deterioration in postoperative renal function. Adjunctive ultrasound is feasible to reduce contrast use in patients with severe renal impairment undergoing CAS.

Ultrasonography and stimulating perineural catheters for nerve blocks: a review of the evidence

This narrative review summarizes the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) offering blinded assessment and sample size justification, in order to determine the benefits associated with adjunctive ultrasonography (US) and stimulating perineural catheters for nerve blocks. The literature search for this review was conducted during the second week of December 2007 using the MEDLINE (January 1950 to November 2007) and EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2007) databases. For US-guided peripheral and neuraxial blocks, the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms were searched: "nerve block", "epidural anesthesia", "epidural analgesia", "epidural injection", "epidural space", "spinal anesthesia", and "spinal injection", the results were combined with "ultrasonography" (MeSH term) and "ultrasound" (key word). For stimulating perineural catheters, the following MeSH terms were cross referenced with the MeSH term, "nerve block": "peripheral catheterization", "indwelling catheterization", "catheterization", and keywords, "nerve catheter" and "continuous". Subsequently, the result of this search was combined to "stimulating" (key word). Fifteen RCTs, offering blinded assessment and sample size justification, were retained for analysis. For axillary blocks, US guidance yields a higher success rate than a double-injection, transarterial and a triple-injection, neurostimulation-guided technique. Compared to a quadruple-stimulation technique, no major differences can be found. The addition of nerve stimulation to US guidance offers no clear benefits for axillary blocks. For femoral blocks, compared to neurostimulation, echoguidance is associated with a local anesthetic (LA) sparing effect (up to 42%). In children, US guidance yields a LA sparing effect and a longer duration of action for lower extremity nerve blocks.Compared to their blind counterparts, stimulating catheters seem to offer limited clinical benefits. Despite providing a sparing effect on LA and opioid consumption, stimulating catheters are not associated with a decrease in side effects or analgesia-related expenditures. Published reports of RCTs provide evidence to formulate limited recommendations regarding the use of adjunctive US and stimulating perineural catheters. Further well-designed and meticulously executed RCTs are warranted.

Imaging Findings of Implanted Absorbable Mesh in Patients with Breast Partial Resection

PurposeThe author presents imaging findings of patients that underwent partial resection of the breast followed by absorbable mesh implantation.Materials and MethodsUltrasonographic (n = 18) and mammographic (n = 11) images of patients that had undergone absorbable mesh implantation after breast partial resection were reviewed retrospectively. Sequential changes of the lesions were analyzed in follow-up ultrasonographic examinations, focusing on the change of the size and pattern of the lesion. The presence of a mass, asymmetry, focal asymmetry, architectural distortion, and calcification were evaluated by mammography. Pathologic findings of the implanted mesh in available cases were analyzed.ResultsUltrasonograms revealed a well-encapsulated anechoic lesion with (pattern 1, n = 11) or without (pattern 2, n = 5) internal isoechoic nodular portion, and a hyperechoic mass-like lesion without anechoic portion (pattern 3, n = 2). The mean length of the longest diameter decreased gradually as determined in follow-up examinations (3 months, 6.12 ± 2.599 cm; 6 months, 5.08 ± 2.105 cm; 12 months, 3.26 ± 2.206 cm). In mammograms, a mass (n = 4) was noted at the surgical site and focal asymmetry, overlapping with the postoperative change, was seen in the remaining seven cases. Pathologic findings of two cases revealed foreign body reaction.ConclusionUltrasonography of the patients that underwent breast partial resection followed by absorbable mesh implantation showed a well-encapsulated cyst at the surgical site that gradually decreased in follow-up examinations. Adjunctive ultrasonography combined with mammography would be recommended in postoperative follow-up examinations.