1. Baseline Performance of Ultrasound-Based Strategies in Breast Cancer Screening Among Chinese Women.
- Author
-
Xu HF, Wang H, Liu Y, Wang XY, Guo XL, Liu HW, Kang RH, Chen Q, Liu SZ, Guo LW, Zheng LY, Qiao YL, and Zhang SK
- Subjects
- Humans, Female, Middle Aged, Adult, China, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Mammography methods, Breast diagnostic imaging, East Asian People, Breast Neoplasms diagnostic imaging, Ultrasonography, Mammary methods, Early Detection of Cancer methods
- Abstract
Rationale and Objective: There is a notable absence of robust evidence on the efficacy of ultrasound-based breast cancer screening strategies, particularly in populations with a high prevalence of dense breasts. Our study addresses this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of such strategies in Chinese women, thereby enriching the evidence base for identifying the most efficacious screening approaches for women with dense breast tissue., Methods: Conducted from October 2018 to August 2022 in Central China, this prospective cohort study enrolled 8996 women aged 35-64 years, divided into two age groups (35-44 and 45-64 years). Participants were screened for breast cancer using hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS), with the older age group also receiving full-field digital mammography (FFDM). The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) was employed for image interpretation, with abnormal results indicated by BI-RADS 4/5, necessitating a biopsy; BI-RADS 3 required follow-up within 6-12 months by primary screening strategies; and BI-RADS 1/2 were classified as negative., Results: Among the screened women, 29 cases of breast cancer were identified, with 4 (1.3‰) in the 35-44 years age group and 25 (4.2‰) in the 45-64 years age group. In the younger age group, HHUS and ABUS performed equally well, with no significant difference in their AUC values (0.8678 vs. 0.8679, P > 0.05). For the older age group, ABUS as a standalone strategy (AUC 0.9935) and both supplemental screening methods (HHUS with FFDM, AUC 0.9920; ABUS with FFDM, AUC 0.9928) outperformed FFDM alone (AUC 0.8983, P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between HHUS alone and FFDM alone (AUC 0.9529 vs. 0.8983, P > 0.05)., Conclusion: The findings indicate that both HHUS and ABUS exhibit strong performance as independent breast cancer screening strategies, with ABUS demonstrating superior potential. However, the integration of FFDM with these ultrasound techniques did not confer a substantial improvement in the overall effectiveness of the screening process., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Huifang Xu reports financial support was provided by Henan Institute of Science and Technology. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF