Two-view mammography is at present the only imaging method used for breast screening. But there are some deficits in differential diagnosis, especially in dense breast tissue and non-calcified tumors. Purpose: The purpose of this study was the demonstration that one-view mammography (EEMG) combined with ultrasound mammography (USMG) and clinical examination (TB) is equal to or more effective for breast screening than two-view mammography (ZEMG). Material and Methods: 3743 female patients examined from 1993-2003 in the Institute for mamma diagnostics (IMZE) in Esslingen/Germany underwent curative mammography with TB, ZEMG, USMG; after surgical excision a definitive histological diagnosis was made. To avoid interobserver variability, only patients examined by the same doctor were included. Applying these criteria 343 female patients with surgically and histologically proved 334 malignant lesions and 9 benign lesions were found. These patients were divided into five age-groups. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, specificity, false negatives and positives were calculated in succession for EEMG, ZEMG, USMG, EEMG + USMG combined and EEMG + USMG + TB combined for the different age-groups. For EEMG only the oblique view of the two-view mammograms was evaluated. Additionally, extended diagnostic methods, like magnetic-resonance mammography (MRM) were analysed, to document a possible diagnostic optimization. Results: The sensitivities for a malignant diagnosis (high-risk lesion, invasive cancer) was 83% for EEMG (95% Cl 78.4-86.8%: p<0.0001), 84% for ZEMG (95% Cl 79.4-87.6%; p<0.0001), 91% for USMG (95% CI 87-93.6%; p<0.0001), 97% for EEMG + USMG (95% Cl 94.5-98.5%; p<0.0001) and 98.5% for TB + EEMG + USMG (95% Cl 96.1-99.3%: p=0.7); the false negatives were 17% (EEMG), 16% (ZEMG), 9% (USMG), 3% (EEMG + USMG) and 1.5% (TB + EEMG + USMG 5/343 interval cancers). The cranio-caudal view was useful only in one case in 10 years. The differences in sensitivity and false negatives were visible in all age-groups and comparable with international studies. Problematic diagnoses (sensitivity: lobular 97%, ductal 97%, ductolobular 100%, apocrine carcinoma 100%, adenocarcinoma 100%) were detected better with EEMG + USMG than with ZEMG (lobular 82%, ductal 84%, ductolobular 40%, apocrine carcinoma 0%, adenocarcinoma 0%). The combination of EEMG + USMG + TB increased sensitivity in women older than 50 years. Below 50 years there was no difference to EEMG + USMG. EEMG + USMG was associated with lower costs than ZEMG (saving 4.4%). Conclusion: In a curative collective EEMG combined with USMG is not only able to replace ZEMG, but increases detection rates in imaging procedures. The advantages of both methods in the detection of high risk lesions and invasive cancer were combined. Therefore EEMG + USMG represent a possible alternative breast screening method with high patient acceptance, because of reduced costs and a lower radiation dose.
Read full abstract