Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis: Is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?

Sadia Choudhery, Jessica Axmacher, Amy Lynn Conners, Jennifer Geske, Kathleen R Brandt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

METHODS:: All masses recalled from screening digital breast tomosynthesis between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 that were sent either to diagnostic mammography or ultrasound were compared. Size, shape, margins, visibility on ultrasound, diagnostic assessment and pathology of all masses along with breast density were evaluated. RESULTS:: 102/212 digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses were worked up with diagnostic mammography initially and 110/212 were worked up with ultrasound directly. There was no significant difference in ultrasound visibility of masses sent to diagnostic mammography first with those sent to ultrasound first (p = 0.42). 4 (4%) masses sent to mammogram first and 2 (2%) masses sent to ultrasound first were not visualized. There was a significant difference in size between masses that were visualized under ultrasound versus those that were not (p = 0.01), when masses in both groups were assessed cumulatively. CONCLUSIONS:: 98% of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses sent to ultrasound directly were adequately assessed without diagnostic mammography. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: There is potential for avoiding a diagnostic mammogram for evaluation of majority of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalThe British journal of radiology
Volume92
Issue number1095
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2019

Fingerprint

Mammography
Ultrasonography
Mammary Ultrasonography
Mass Screening
Pathology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis : Is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient? / Choudhery, Sadia; Axmacher, Jessica; Conners, Amy Lynn; Geske, Jennifer; Brandt, Kathleen R.

In: The British journal of radiology, Vol. 92, No. 1095, 01.03.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Choudhery, Sadia ; Axmacher, Jessica ; Conners, Amy Lynn ; Geske, Jennifer ; Brandt, Kathleen R. / Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis : Is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?. In: The British journal of radiology. 2019 ; Vol. 92, No. 1095.
@article{583aeb9cca8743e8910d02c83652c171,
title = "Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis: Is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?",
abstract = "METHODS:: All masses recalled from screening digital breast tomosynthesis between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 that were sent either to diagnostic mammography or ultrasound were compared. Size, shape, margins, visibility on ultrasound, diagnostic assessment and pathology of all masses along with breast density were evaluated. RESULTS:: 102/212 digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses were worked up with diagnostic mammography initially and 110/212 were worked up with ultrasound directly. There was no significant difference in ultrasound visibility of masses sent to diagnostic mammography first with those sent to ultrasound first (p = 0.42). 4 (4{\%}) masses sent to mammogram first and 2 (2{\%}) masses sent to ultrasound first were not visualized. There was a significant difference in size between masses that were visualized under ultrasound versus those that were not (p = 0.01), when masses in both groups were assessed cumulatively. CONCLUSIONS:: 98{\%} of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses sent to ultrasound directly were adequately assessed without diagnostic mammography. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: There is potential for avoiding a diagnostic mammogram for evaluation of majority of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses.",
author = "Sadia Choudhery and Jessica Axmacher and Conners, {Amy Lynn} and Jennifer Geske and Brandt, {Kathleen R}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1259/bjr.20180801",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
journal = "British Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0007-1285",
publisher = "British Institute of Radiology",
number = "1095",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis

T2 - Is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?

AU - Choudhery, Sadia

AU - Axmacher, Jessica

AU - Conners, Amy Lynn

AU - Geske, Jennifer

AU - Brandt, Kathleen R

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - METHODS:: All masses recalled from screening digital breast tomosynthesis between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 that were sent either to diagnostic mammography or ultrasound were compared. Size, shape, margins, visibility on ultrasound, diagnostic assessment and pathology of all masses along with breast density were evaluated. RESULTS:: 102/212 digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses were worked up with diagnostic mammography initially and 110/212 were worked up with ultrasound directly. There was no significant difference in ultrasound visibility of masses sent to diagnostic mammography first with those sent to ultrasound first (p = 0.42). 4 (4%) masses sent to mammogram first and 2 (2%) masses sent to ultrasound first were not visualized. There was a significant difference in size between masses that were visualized under ultrasound versus those that were not (p = 0.01), when masses in both groups were assessed cumulatively. CONCLUSIONS:: 98% of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses sent to ultrasound directly were adequately assessed without diagnostic mammography. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: There is potential for avoiding a diagnostic mammogram for evaluation of majority of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses.

AB - METHODS:: All masses recalled from screening digital breast tomosynthesis between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 that were sent either to diagnostic mammography or ultrasound were compared. Size, shape, margins, visibility on ultrasound, diagnostic assessment and pathology of all masses along with breast density were evaluated. RESULTS:: 102/212 digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses were worked up with diagnostic mammography initially and 110/212 were worked up with ultrasound directly. There was no significant difference in ultrasound visibility of masses sent to diagnostic mammography first with those sent to ultrasound first (p = 0.42). 4 (4%) masses sent to mammogram first and 2 (2%) masses sent to ultrasound first were not visualized. There was a significant difference in size between masses that were visualized under ultrasound versus those that were not (p = 0.01), when masses in both groups were assessed cumulatively. CONCLUSIONS:: 98% of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses sent to ultrasound directly were adequately assessed without diagnostic mammography. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: There is potential for avoiding a diagnostic mammogram for evaluation of majority of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061972541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061972541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1259/bjr.20180801

DO - 10.1259/bjr.20180801

M3 - Article

C2 - 30495975

AN - SCOPUS:85061972541

VL - 92

JO - British Journal of Radiology

JF - British Journal of Radiology

SN - 0007-1285

IS - 1095

ER -