Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Screening Breast Ultrasound: Where Are We Today?

  • Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we will review the current recommendations for screening breast ultrasound along with its role as an adjunct to mammography and as a primary screening tool. We will discuss the most recent literature pertaining to breast ultrasound screening in high-risk, intermediate-risk, and average-risk women and compare it with other breast screening modalities including breast MRI, tomosynthesis or 3D mammography, and automated breast ultrasound. The current obstacles to screening breast ultrasound’s more widespread implementation will also be covered in our discussion. These will include ultrasound’s high false positive rate when compared to mammography, overdiagnosis, and cost-effectiveness. Our target audience encompasses breast surgeons, oncologists, and breast radiologists with an interest in screening breast ultrasound.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih Y-CT, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–614.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, Ferlay J, Forman D. Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008–2030): a population-based study. The Lancet Oncology. 2012;13(8):790–801. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70211-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA. Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173 797 patients. BMJ. 2015;351. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4901.

  4. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, et al. The Swedish two-county trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin N Am. 2000;38(4):625–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89. doi:10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Siu AL. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279–96. doi:10.7326/M15-2886.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(1):18–27. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2009.09.022.

  8. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, et al. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):268–78. doi:10.7326/M15-1789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology. 1998;209(2):511–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225(1):165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Radiology ACo, Committee B-R. ACR BI-RADS breast imaging and reporting data system: breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology. 2013.

  12. Boyd NF. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book / ASCO American Society of Clinical Oncology Meeting. 2013. doi:10.1200/EdBook_AM.2013.33.e57.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kerlikowske K. The mammogram that cried Wolfe. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):297–300. doi:10.1056/NEJMe068244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):302–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. DenseBreast-info: legislation and regulations—what is required? http://densebreast-info.org/legislation.aspx.

  16. Gierach GL, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K, Brinton LA, Farhat GN, Vacek PM, et al. Relationship between mammographic density and breast cancer death in the breast cancer surveillance consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(16):1218–27. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs327.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST 1. Radiology. 2008. doi:10.1148/radiol.2461070200.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bae MS, Moon WK, Chang JM, Koo HR, Kim WH, Cho N, et al. Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology. 2014;270(2):369–77. doi:10.1148/radiol.13130724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parris T, Wakefield D, Frimmer H. Real world performance of screening breast ultrasound following enactment of Connecticut Bill 458. Breast J. 2012;19:1. doi:10.1111/tbj.12053.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Scheel JR et al. Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(1):9–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The Connecticut experiments second year: ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J. 2015;21(2):175–80. doi:10.1111/tbj.12386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(4):539–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ghirardi M, Ferrari A, Speziani M, Bellarosa S, et al. Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(7):1021–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2008;299(18):2151–63. doi:10.1001/jama.299.18.2151.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):157–66. doi:10.7326/M14-0692.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1394–404. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Suzuki A, Ishida T, Ohuchi N. Controversies in breast cancer screening for women aged 40–49 years. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014;44(7):613–8. doi:10.1093/jjco/hyu054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB, Sandhaug M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Stoeblen F. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study. Acta Radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987). 2015;56(4):404–12. doi:10.1177/0284185114528835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Berg WA, Mendelson EB. Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US imaging: how is it performed and what are the outcomes to date? Radiology. 2014;272(1):12–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jeh SK, Kim SH, Choi JJ, Jung SS, Choe BJ, Park S, et al. Comparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesions. Acta Radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987). 2016;57(2):162–9. doi:10.1177/0284185115574872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Arleo EK, Saleh M, Ionescu D, Drotman M, Min RJ, Hentel K. Recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts: a first quarter experience. Clin Imaging. 2014;38(4):439–44. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brem RF, Tabár L, Duffy SW, Inciardi MF, Guingrich JA, Hashimoto BE, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology. 2015;274(3):663–73. doi:10.1148/radiol.14132832. Multicenter prospective trial to determine changes in the cancer detection rate when automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is added to mammographic screening in women with dense breast tissue.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee S-JJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):734–42. doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1588-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. The Lancet Oncology. 2013;14(7):583–9. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56. doi:10.1148/radiol.12121373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Tosto S, Monetti F, et al. Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.4147. Prospective multicenter trial comparing DBT to US as adjunct screening in the same women with a negative screening mammogram and dense breasts.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Berg WA. Current status of supplemental screening in sense breasts. J Clin Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1200/jco.2015.65.8674.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng Y-F, et al. 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. Lancet. 2016;387(10016):10016. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00774-6. Randomised controlled trial evaluating screening breast ultrasound in dense breasts.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):390–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers R-D, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging: first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection—a novel approach to breast cancer screening with mri. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(22):2304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Houssami N, Abraham LA, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, et al. Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(8):790–9. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Leong SP, Shen Z-Z, Liu T-J, Agarwal G, Tajima T, Paik N-S, et al. Is breast cancer the same disease in Asian and Western countries? World J Surg. 2010;34(10):2308–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. DeSantis C, Ma J, Bryan L, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):52–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fan L et al. Breast cancer in China. The Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(7):e279–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Chapman A, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Berzaczy D, Van Noord MG, et al. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD009632.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schrading S, Strobel K, Kuhl C. Abstract S1-09: MRI screening of women at average risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2013;73(24 Supplement):S1–09-S1-.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED. Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: analysis from ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:4. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nelson HD, Cantor A, Humphrey L, Fu R, Pappas M, Daeges M, et al. Screening for breast cancer: a systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Tosteson AA, Fryback DG, Hammond CS, et al. Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(6):954–61. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Jørgensen K, Gøtzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2587. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2587.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. The Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778–86.

  53. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998–2005. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1206809.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, De Koning H, Lynge E, Zappa M, et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19 suppl 1:42–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Molleran VM. Will supplemental screening ultrasound increase breast cancer overdiagnosis? Acad Radiol. 2015;22(8):967–72. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2014.10.012. Review article describing the advantages and disadvantages of screening breast ultrasound and overdiagnosis.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Chae EY, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Kim H. Evaluation of screening whole-breast sonography as a supplemental tool in conjunction with mammography in women with dense breasts. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(9):1573–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shen S, Zhou Y, Xu Y, Zhang B, Duan X, Huang R, et al. A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(6):998–1004. doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA

    Elsa M. Arribas & Gary J. Whitman

  2. Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, Los Angeles, USA

    Nanette De Bruhl

Authors
  1. Elsa M. Arribas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary J. Whitman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nanette De Bruhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elsa M. Arribas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Elsa M. Arribas, Gary J. Whitman, and Nanette De Bruhl declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Screening and Imaging

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arribas, E.M., Whitman, G.J. & De Bruhl, N. Screening Breast Ultrasound: Where Are We Today?. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 8, 221–229 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0223-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0223-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation