Comparison of Mammography in Combination with Breast Ultrasonography Versus Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening in Asymptomatic Women

  • Boonlikit, Sarawan (Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Institute)
  • Published : 2013.12.31


Aim: To compare the agreement of screening breast mammography plus ultrasound and reviewed mammography alone in asymptomatic women. Materials and Methods: All breast imaging data were obtained for women who presented for routine medical checkup at National Cancer Institute (NCI), Thailand from January 2010 to June 2013. A radiologist performed masked interpretations of selected mammographic images retrieved from the computer imaging database. Previous mammography, ultrasound reports and clinical data were blinded before film re-interpretation. Kappa values were calculated to assess the agreement between BIRADS assessment category and BIRADS classification of density obtained from the mammography with ultrasound in imaging database and reviewed mammography alone. Results: Regarding BIRADS assessment category, concordance between the two interpretations were good. Observed agreement was 96.1%. There was moderate agreement in which the Kappa value was 0.58% (95%CI; 0.45, 0.87). The agreement of BI-RADS classification of density was substantial, with a Kappa value of 0.60 (95%CI; 0.54, 0.66). Different results were obtained when a subgroup of patients aged ${\geq}60$ years were analyzed. In women in this group, observed agreement was 97.6%. There was also substantial agreement in which the Kappa value was 0.74% (95%CI; 0.49, 0.98). Conclusions: The present study revealed that concordance between mammography plus ultrasound and reviewed mammography alone in asymptomatic women is good. However, there is just moderate agreement which can be enhanced if age-targeted breast imaging is performed. Substantial agreement can be achieved in women aged ${\geq}60$. Adjunctive breast ultrasound is less important in women in this group.


  1. American College of Radiology (2003). Breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology.
  2. Attasara P, Buasom R, editors (2011). Hospital based cancer registry 2011. National cancer institute Department of medical services, Ministry of public health, pp 3.
  3. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC (1996). Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med, 156, 209-13.
  4. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al (2008). Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA, 299, 2151-63.
  5. Bhothisuwan W (2004). Practicing breast imaging in HRT ladies in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai, 87, 169-73.
  6. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al (1995). Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk:results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst, 87, 670-5.
  7. Boyd N, Martin L, Stone J, et al (2002). A longitudinal study of the effects of menopause on mammographic features. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 10, 1048-53.
  8. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S (2011). Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res, 13, 223-9.
  9. Brooks SE, Hembree TM, Shelton BJ, et al (2013). Mobile mammography in underserved populations: Analysis of outcomes of 3,923 women. J Community Health, 38, 900-6.
  10. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M (1999). Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol, 173, 921-7.
  11. Caney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al (2003). Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med, 138, 168-75.
  12. Devolli-Disha E, Manxhuka-Kerliu S, Ymeri H, Kutllovci A (2009). Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density. Bosn J Basic Med Sci, 9, 131-6.
  13. Elkin EB, Ishill NM, Snow JG, et al (2010). Geographic access and the use of screening mammography. Med Care, 48, 349-56.
  14. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR (1994). Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med, 331, 1493-9.
  15. Flobbe K, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG, et al.(2002). The role of ultrasonography as an adjunct to mammography in the detection of breast cancer. a systematic review. Eur J Cancer, 38, 1044-50.
  16. Fontenoy AM, Langlois A, Chang SL,et al.(2013). Contribution and performance of mobile units in an organized mammography screening program. Can J Public Health, 104, 193-9.
  17. Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Chapman A, et al (2013). Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4, 9632.
  18. Gordon PB (2002). Ultrasound for breast cancer screening and staging. Radiol Clin North Am, 40, 431-41.
  19. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL (1995). Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer, 76, 626-30.<626::AID-CNCR2820760413>3.0.CO;2-Z
  20. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge III JH, Smart CR (1997). Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-9: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 22, 87-92.
  21. Jensen A, Vejborg I, Severinsen N, et al (2006). Performance of clinical mammography: a nationwide study from Denmark. Int J Cancer, 119, 183-91.
  22. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al (1998). Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology breast imaging reporting and data system. J Natl Cancer Inst, 90, 1801-9.
  23. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996). Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA, 276, 33-8.
  24. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002). 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. Radiol, 225, 165-75.
  25. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (1998). Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiol, 207, 191-9.
  26. Maly RC, Leake B, Mojica CM, et al (2011). What influences diagnostic delay in low income women with breast cancer? Women's Health (Larchmt), 20, 1017-23.
  27. Mo M, Liu GY, Zheng Y, et al (2013). Performance of breast cancer screening methods and modality among Chinese women: a report from a society-based breast screening program (SBSP) in Shanghai. Springerplus, 2, 276.
  28. Oestreicher N, Lehman CD, Seger DJ, Buist DS, White E (2005). The incremental contribution of clinical breast examination to invasive cancer detection in a mammography screening program. Am J Roentgenol, 184, 428-32.
  29. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al (1999). Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiol, 213, 889-94.
  30. Redondo A, Comas M, Macia F, et al (2012). Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol, 85, 1465-70.
  31. Shapiro S, Strax P,Venet L (1971). Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA, 215, 1777-85.
  32. Shin HR, Joubert C, Boniol M, et al (2010). Recent trends and patterns in breast cancer incidence among Eastern and Southeastern Asian women. Cancer Causes Control, 21, 1777-85.
  33. Skaane P, Engedal K (1998). Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol, 170, 109-14.
  34. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al (1995). Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiol, 196, 123-34.
  35. Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, ArredondoMA (1996). Analysis of parenchymal density on mammogramsin 1353 women 25-79 years old. Am J Roentgenol, 167, 1261-5.
  36. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al (2001). Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer, 91, 1724-31.<1724::AID-CNCR1190>3.0.CO;2-V
  37. Thurfjell EL, Lindgren JA(1996). Breast cancer survival rates with mammographic screening: similar favorable survival rates for women younger and those older than 50 years. Radiol, 201, 421-6.
  38. Titus-Ernstoff L, Tosteson AN, Kasales C, et al (2006). Breast cancer risk factors in relation to breast density (United States). Cancer Causes Control, 17, 1281-90.
  39. Warner E, Lockwood G, Math M, Tritchler D, Boyd NF (1992). The risk of breast cancer associated with mammographic parenchymal patterns: a meta-analysis of the published literature to examine the effect of method of classification. Cancer Detect Prev, 16, 67-72.
  40. White E, Velentgas P, Mandelson MT, et al (1998). Variation in mammographic breast density by time in menstrual cycle among women aged 40-9 years. J Natl Cancer Inst, 90, 906-10.

Cited by

  1. Systemic Analysis on Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema vol.15, pp.16, 2014,
  2. Relation between Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns and Breast Cancer Risk: Considering BMI, Compressed Breast Thickness and Age of Women in Tabriz, Iran vol.17, pp.4, 2016,
  3. Potential Safety Loophole of Fat Grafting in Breast Cancer Patients vol.40, pp.3, 2016,