Myoung Kyoung Kim, Min Su Park, Min Gyu Go, Jeong Eon Lee, Jong Han Yu, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Young Ko, Ji Soo Choi, Jeongmin Lee, Haejung Kim, Yeon Hee Park, Eun Sook Ko
{"title":"乳腺癌手术后前5年影像学监测结果。","authors":"Myoung Kyoung Kim, Min Su Park, Min Gyu Go, Jeong Eon Lee, Jong Han Yu, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Young Ko, Ji Soo Choi, Jeongmin Lee, Haejung Kim, Yeon Hee Park, Eun Sook Ko","doi":"10.3348/kjr.2024.1101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the outcomes of imaging methods (mammography alone, ultrasound [US] alone, mammography combined with US, and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]-based examination) for surveillance during the first 5 years after breast cancer surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study analyzed the medical records of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery at a single institution between January 2011 and December 2015. Imaging surveillance was performed at 6-month or 1-year intervals during the first 5 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6371 women (median age, 49 years; age range, 20-90 years) underwent 28199 mammograms, 42759 US, and 2619 MRI examinations. Of 172 second breast cancer diagnoses, 19 (11.0%) were interval cancers. Mammography combined with US demonstrated higher cancer detection rate (CDR) compared to mammography alone (odds ratios [OR] = 3.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.52-8.96, <i>P</i> = 0.009) and US alone (OR = 2.80, 95% CI: 1.71-4.65, <i>P</i> < 0.001), whereas there was no statistical significance when compared with MRI-based examinations (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.49-1.74, <i>P</i> > 0.999). A statistically significant interaction was observed between the mammographic breast density (MBD) and CDR of the imaging methods (<i>P</i> for interaction = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CDR of surveillance mammography combined with US was comparable with that of MRI-based examinations in an intensive surveillance setting. Considering the significant interaction between MBD and the CDR, a tailored approach for surveillance based on breast density is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":17881,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"532-545"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surveillance Outcomes by Imaging Methods in the First 5 Years After Breast Cancer Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Myoung Kyoung Kim, Min Su Park, Min Gyu Go, Jeong Eon Lee, Jong Han Yu, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Young Ko, Ji Soo Choi, Jeongmin Lee, Haejung Kim, Yeon Hee Park, Eun Sook Ko\",\"doi\":\"10.3348/kjr.2024.1101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the outcomes of imaging methods (mammography alone, ultrasound [US] alone, mammography combined with US, and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]-based examination) for surveillance during the first 5 years after breast cancer surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study analyzed the medical records of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery at a single institution between January 2011 and December 2015. Imaging surveillance was performed at 6-month or 1-year intervals during the first 5 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6371 women (median age, 49 years; age range, 20-90 years) underwent 28199 mammograms, 42759 US, and 2619 MRI examinations. Of 172 second breast cancer diagnoses, 19 (11.0%) were interval cancers. Mammography combined with US demonstrated higher cancer detection rate (CDR) compared to mammography alone (odds ratios [OR] = 3.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.52-8.96, <i>P</i> = 0.009) and US alone (OR = 2.80, 95% CI: 1.71-4.65, <i>P</i> < 0.001), whereas there was no statistical significance when compared with MRI-based examinations (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.49-1.74, <i>P</i> > 0.999). A statistically significant interaction was observed between the mammographic breast density (MBD) and CDR of the imaging methods (<i>P</i> for interaction = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CDR of surveillance mammography combined with US was comparable with that of MRI-based examinations in an intensive surveillance setting. Considering the significant interaction between MBD and the CDR, a tailored approach for surveillance based on breast density is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"532-545\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.1101\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.1101","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Surveillance Outcomes by Imaging Methods in the First 5 Years After Breast Cancer Surgery.
Objective: To compare the outcomes of imaging methods (mammography alone, ultrasound [US] alone, mammography combined with US, and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]-based examination) for surveillance during the first 5 years after breast cancer surgery.
Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the medical records of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery at a single institution between January 2011 and December 2015. Imaging surveillance was performed at 6-month or 1-year intervals during the first 5 years.
Results: A total of 6371 women (median age, 49 years; age range, 20-90 years) underwent 28199 mammograms, 42759 US, and 2619 MRI examinations. Of 172 second breast cancer diagnoses, 19 (11.0%) were interval cancers. Mammography combined with US demonstrated higher cancer detection rate (CDR) compared to mammography alone (odds ratios [OR] = 3.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.52-8.96, P = 0.009) and US alone (OR = 2.80, 95% CI: 1.71-4.65, P < 0.001), whereas there was no statistical significance when compared with MRI-based examinations (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.49-1.74, P > 0.999). A statistically significant interaction was observed between the mammographic breast density (MBD) and CDR of the imaging methods (P for interaction = 0.003).
Conclusion: The CDR of surveillance mammography combined with US was comparable with that of MRI-based examinations in an intensive surveillance setting. Considering the significant interaction between MBD and the CDR, a tailored approach for surveillance based on breast density is warranted.
期刊介绍:
The inaugural issue of the Korean J Radiol came out in March 2000. Our journal aims to produce and propagate knowledge on radiologic imaging and related sciences.
A unique feature of the articles published in the Journal will be their reflection of global trends in radiology combined with an East-Asian perspective. Geographic differences in disease prevalence will be reflected in the contents of papers, and this will serve to enrich our body of knowledge.
World''s outstanding radiologists from many countries are serving as editorial board of our journal.