Mammography and Breast Implants

Hayes, Harry; Vandergrift, James; Diner, Wilma C.

doi:10.1097/00006534-198882010-00002

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was expected because we perform breast ultrasound and diagnostic mammograms to further workup abnormalities seen on screening. On the other hand, breast implants were not commonly reported in any of the five imaging modalities, yet are important to document as they may obscure visualization of breast lesions [40,41]. When prevalence of lesions are low, accuracy rates have very wide confidence intervals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of an Automated Information Extraction Tool for Imaging Data Elements to Populate a Breast Cancer Screening Registry

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast cancer screening is central to early breast cancer detection. Identifying and monitoring process measures for screening is a focus of the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) initiative, which requires participating centers to report structured data across the cancer screening continuum. We evaluate the accuracy of automated information extraction of imaging findings from radiology reports, which are available as unstructured text. We present prevalence estimates of imaging findings for breast imaging received by women who obtained care in a primary care network participating in PROSPR (n=139,953 radiology reports) and compared automatically extracted data elements to a "gold standard" based on manual review for a validation sample of 941 randomly selected radiology reports, including mammograms, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The prevalence of imaging findings vary by data element and modality (e.g., suspicious calcification noted in 2.6 % of screening mammograms, 12.1 % of diagnostic mammograms, and 9.4 % of tomosynthesis exams). In the validation sample, the accuracy of identifying imaging findings, including suspicious calcifications, masses, and architectural distortion (on mammogram and tomosynthesis); masses, cysts, non-mass enhancement, and enhancing foci (on MRI); and masses and cysts (on ultrasound), range from 0.8 to1.0 for recall, precision, and Fmeasure. Information extraction tools can be used for accurate documentation of imaging findings as structured data elements from text reports for a variety of breast imaging modalities. These data can be used to populate screening registries to help elucidate more effective breast cancer screening processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of an Automated Information Extraction Tool for Imaging Data Elements to Populate a Breast Cancer Screening Registry

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the contrary, several reports document that women with cosmetic breast implants seem to be at a lower risk of developing breast cancer (Berkel et al, 1992;Deapen et al, 1997;McLaughlin et al, 1998;Hoshaw et al, 2001). However, the issue of potential delay in breast cancer diagnosis in the augmented breast has been raised, since breast implants are radiopaque and this influences the sensitivity of mammography (Eklund et al, 1988;Hayes et al, 1988;Silverstein et al, 1992). Clinical reports have suggested a possible delay and difficulties in the diagnosis of breast cancer (Leibman and Kruse, 1990;Silverstein et al, 1990a;Carlson et al, 1993;Fajardo et al, 1995), but most epidemiological studies have not supported a delay in diagnosis or impaired survival among women with breast implants (Birdsell et al, 1993;Deapen et al, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stage of breast cancer at diagnosis among women with cosmetic breast implants

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern has been raised about the potential delay in breast cancer diagnosis in the augmented breast. We linked a cohort of 2955 women, who received cosmetic breast implants in Denmark during the period 1973 -1997 with the Danish Cancer Registry and the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group register. We identified 23 incident cases of invasive breast cancer diagnosed subsequent to breast implantation. We randomly selected 11 controls for each case from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group's register, and obtained detailed information on all study subjects about surgery, histopathology and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis, intended adjuvant treatment according to trial protocols and overall survival. We found that women with breast implants on average were diagnosed with breast cancer at the same stage as controls. Significantly more women with breast implants had tumour cells in the surgical margins according to the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group's data. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups after an average of 6.4 years of follow-up. Based on this limited number of women with breast cancer subsequent to breast augmentation, breast implants do not appear to delay the diagnosis of breast cancer, and no evidence of impaired survival after breast cancer diagnosis in augmented women was found.

show abstract

“…screening for carcinoma in the implanted breast. 4 As well as the prosthesis obscuring breast tissue, it compresses tissue and the resulting density can mask the presence of small tumours. Mammography is also technically more difficult in the augmented breast.5…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%