Vai trò của siêu âm trong sàng lọc ung thư vú

VAITRO CUA SIEU AM TRONG

SANG LOC UNG THU'VU

Ts. Bs Nguyén Thu Huong

Benh vin DKQT Vinmec Times City

Hy gu VSUM

_«« xố xsiue nie0-8, 200= ld - fm

NOIDUNG

+ Mie dO bang ching trong sing lc

*Neuyen tic Wilson & unger

+ Sang loc ung thuv’l
+ Siéu dm trong sang loc ung thu vis siéu dm 20, sim 3D

Mit 6 bang cig trong sang lo

NạH — TTNAUMMG Mạnh
Pe Ht)
|M[ ỹjuụh Tt | Snead
tw | ie ẾH |, hy
sto im whtdings gy cht se
wine — | (Rnardyis tin |" MAN)
tnt | «tht
i Nà ai âm:

maine Nima (0lllhu)
Be | ng | Stall |
iy (ually incl ids oro! | «Shaun
_ Đ am | utc |
ứng quality cto uo wth
were +qo uay ci als |
KEMMB
Wa age steal
+ Rbospecohco ihye
ill
pattcyh

eles

00091004

Conn quel 0Ì omen tear, vv pact, op,

anit ie eed yor a

Cave seri sudsof anon, treatment, rveion,osrening,

MarkH.Eel et l(200) Strength of Recommendation Taxonony (SORT) A Pain Centered Apptro Goraiag Ecvidhence

(nthe Medial Lteratre The Journal fhe American Bordo aly Practice

Neuyén tic Wilson &Jungner

+ Single: vn sức hửa quan trong (ia Goan tri ching ttm n hd ob th hat ién

som,

+ Dom dn, antodn chin de, ge wdcmhdn vi due nou dân ly thị,
+ thương túii Ìitịtúbằngthín chủ thd cdu tr som sé mang i Kt qua bt hon

ditt mun Cn o dy cosvtt hd chin ddadit,

* Chung tinh sng lc phi li chín tát thử nghiện ngành t đi ching
chat long cao: higu qua rong vig iam tt vong hod bn tt, Ich >i hiv th
cht va tam ly, Chi phi higu qua va phai chang trong pham vi nquon luc sén tó,

+ Wilson MG, lngner G (1968) Pringles and practic of screening fo cease Publi health papers 34, Geneva: Word Health

Crganlaation (tps /agps wh nt ihandl 1066537680),

Damn bao loiih ca vec sng oc ung tuon

hon tac hal

Sang loc ung thu’vu (UTV}

+ UTVa bn tinh ph bin phy nd (24 5) (ung 2021}

+ Nguy co phtrién LTV ting theo db tuoi va mot yu nguy co

+ 12.%phy nls du chin dodn UTV trong suo ude dt

+ Sang loc Xquang phat hign UTV som (8 RCT}

> Dit dngte v)ong idm nguy co tondgi 15%, iam apy co tuyt di 0.0% phy nS ud

hod hon {GOtasche 2013

› lịth(|T#db d1i% p99 Neon 209]

> Di chin dc ca XquangviphythuGaeo mit6m i, UTV khong vida co the bib sot

Voitrd ci siéu dmv trong sting loc?

Urasound for Breast Cancer Detection Globally;
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Al ud MPH; ke Rh, PAD Delran haa, Emly nbd MO Kae Po, MD Ea Poll, MO
Cl, Mala, MD sa A, Mlle, MD a usa lung, MỤ?

PURPOSE Maimopaphy snl avs avaiaor bfelasieble The purpoofseis systematic eviawnd mela 2100-2018

Anis to asses the clagnst prrmance of Uasound as a primary ol fr eay detection of Yeast 526 dented studies,

cance, Gwere eligible for
inclsiondles
HATERIALS AND METHODS Fortis sstemati revi ad mel-we acompneheansiesl se,arched PubMed
Sou Roth Saar, bid, oli,
and SCOPUSto ident aril fom lnuary 2000 Decenber 2018 tat ineuded data onthe peommance ot
Polack Mola Mullen Hay Utanund
Ulrefosduetenctiodn of rast cancer, Sls evaluating portal, handhl utasnund san independent
frat ne een aly Sete
election molt tres cancer wer nuded. Cult assessment and Dias anal ere peromewdih
{he Qualty Asessmentof Diagnose Acuracy tule? fol, Sensi anaes and metaregresion were Review and Metta | Gob nc, 201 Aug:
Used explore heerogenety, Th study poohcas lben eewh he e rlmatonal prospective regter 17 dt MNG0O180007, Pa Ab

M0:
(Íyyltrolt evens (PROSPERO iene: CRO42019127752),
RESULTS Othe biden suis, 26 ereelglerineuion Uasoun adan vr poled snstty
and ecco 80.1% (95% Cl, 72.2% Wo 86.3%) and 88.4% 05% 0), 79.8% 03.6%) respecte, When

cml lo and midlencone cour data wee considered, utrasnund maintained dlagnost sentof

9.2% and teltl of 99.1, Mete-anahs othe included studs revealed henge, The hgh
sero uasund forthe detection of rast cancer was not satay seiany feet in ubpup

anaes onthe bai of mean ae, fs, symptoms, study design as lee, and sud sting,

CONCLUSION Gente increasing bude fas cacer anda mammography nce sings

We Delthesve eresus suppteoprleta useof utasoundas an eect primary detctin tal fr beat

cancer, which maybe beneficial in lovesoucesetings where mammographyi uavalbl,

]lul tui © 2019 Anecan Sno lla Coy

HOLE 2 Sant Aus fhe Dg Paar lu Delong Brat Cancar

ide Wt Ses wens
Ven vt an) Stiy, (854) St 8 Sub Sey MUƯU ARN)
mm Tis) WUA(BBNRMENUVMĐĐMĐ WĐ #6 A00UĐB IWUWNb AD
Thay TROND TUTOR WỸ HH RAEN MO
County
6l MSK6WBPB@ĐBWĐĐS 0 aH ARRAN NID
We

20 (74986) WZ7WWbf3) 91.04 (839) 09519) 7243 99.72 41.30 (15to9107685) 2
We
“DGG —M w TT ẻrYš Y8.
(wi
mm"

narknsnes)

Symplons
Wt WẾM ALOR HCL AHH) Hed B5 090020103) 010M6 39
MwlUgbddppbli lUAU PNWWĐMUWPMEĐBO DB 6W BHUĐĐĐM — 279
Land ri,spi)

Tie dnt!
tre GLE) T9730 GLEE) ST 9# SUS LB
Wk ‘Sc HODIĐĐRMBEDPIBĐĐS ĐW 9U 49BBMĐĐ 25

THOLE 1. Pwtttunt dí|lintdgagly t5 lu 90V) Mdlt d 15 Stuces With ect Compan

lítlÍN Na of ses (No, women examined) ÿ9)ÌÌ\,%(SÍ| P SA P

lụ

>‘0 yes
Vang (NI — RONBOW). Ua IUNN ORSON CAN —

Mmgjh IUUMỢ — 980166 <Ú W#ĐIĐỆ5 ‹lỦỦ

mm IƯNH TRWUĐRM WŨẾMĐỹBN —-

lụt

Low
Wingy II — Đ8MU2Đ)03 <Ú BNWRMBSĐ cH
mm BI BHÍĐĐBĐ HHẾ6ĐĐN
Hh
lưmgyh G85) ETTTTTHI
mm G5) HUNWUNM ĐWĐDĐM.

Synpls!

Pree
Warm (21) ARBRE < OL 890K) < A
Unt IUNN TĐWPMBM HẾẾHĐ —-
m
Mmgh IUỢNN — GIIIĐBĐIS <Ú 9ŠWJĐ0W Dart HN RRMA) TIO —

CONCLUSION: Given the increasing burden of breast cancer
and infeasiblity of mammography in certain settings, we

believe these results support the potential use of ultrasound as

an effective primary detection tool fr breast cancer, which may
be beneficial in low-resource settings where mammography i

unavailable

Brest ultrasound: recommendation for information to women

and refering physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

Are Evans! Rubia Tinbol Aland Atanas» Cre Bleu» Pac Blur’

Uh Bi la Camps Herero” Pana Cur Cathaine Cl’ Eleanor omford”» va Falenbeg®s

Michael HFuchsjaeger”™Flona Gide» Thomas Hebi’: Karen Kine yi, HeywangKabrumers

Christan Kits ise, Mann" Laura Marth: Pro Pa”: ada edn
Awd, Papel» Kaj ike Sophia ackrson» Gabor Foal Facec Sadan” for the

European Societyof Breast Imaging (EUSOB), with language review by Europa Donna-The European Breast Cancer

Calton

Ace5 Ap 018 Reid28:Ai 2018 /Accept 14 ay 2018 Path oni 9 Aut2018
(The hat 8

mm Teaching Points

USiscan established too forswpeted cancers at all ages and als the method of choice under 4

+ For USsvisble suspicious eins, US guided bignys prefered, evefnor palpable finds,

+Highrisk women can be screened with US; egpecal when MRI canot be [im
» Supplemental US increases cance detection but also fase positives, bigs rate ad follow-up exams
+ Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method

Woo | one Comparison oflrasound and mammography fo early diagnos
of eat cancer among Chinese women with supcted breast
IIIIlll7IUI6
lesions: A prospective ra

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Yin Wing | Yung | YS | Cah | tv Na |

Uy | baLv | Gams | Yale | ign | QS |
Ssh
Ihtnd
Background: round i more widely sed thn mammography for ay dans
of beat cancer in China as most Chee women hae smal and dense mammary
gsTis stay compure th dant performancoef runand mdann ~> Ultrasound is more
raphfyr bres cancer among Chinese women wth susperecsttseonds, sensitive and accurate than
Method; Fom Noverber 2019 to November 2021, we compared the eal of la
sound and mammography for brea sion dignos in 2737 coneutpartipants mammogroandpdehteycts
wih uct brett sions al tins underent bop, We measured the sens more breast cancers witha
ty sity, and dag accuracy sual,
Reals Among the 2737 paras, 264 breast esos were dette, nding lower specifiy
1935 (60) breast cancers and SU (32) engn sions, Of the breast ances,

utasound detected 1451 057%), wheres mammography detected 1527 (789) Wang Sagan Wag Ut, Uh, ua, haan Sn

Th sent of lrsound for brat cancer dane wa slay higher ‘Compursonof ulrsound and mammforoeayydaaopoyfbreat
cancer among Chie women wth apeted brat lens Apropcte l,
than tat of mammography (357% vs, 789%, p OO), whereas the geiy hora Canc, Nov2)33541,5do 10400 3714
vas sinc over than tht of mammopraphy (129% 1, €23R, p< OO), Epub 202 Sop 30 PD, 3617940, PCI: PCS.
The recver operating characteristic cues reveled that ulaound was more

acura n-detetng beat cancer than mammogaphy (768%, 71.3%,

f-< OU), Age, body mas index, and bret deny didnot nunc wlasound

sey and acu,
(lu: (tu i more seme and curt han mammoraphy and
detects more res canwctherloswer sity,

>Aa lem Med 2015Feb 3162315766, do 1732614682

Cr Sprague, Natasha Stout Cyd eect, Ncohen var Raves Mah Co

Benefits, hats, andcost-effectiveness of COgutan Algo, CitoLey, ecvoun de)n Broek, Dank Might an§Manndela,

Harty de Koi Ka Werle, Constance Letan Arn WA Toston

supplemental ultrasonography screening for Wome ys pen wn sown

with dense breasts

Abstract

Backgrounds Mary states ave as requiring mammography facts to tl womewinth dense
breasts and negate results on screening manmogapty to cscs supplemental screenitnegss

wither providers, The ost realy avalable supplemental screening methods ultrasonography,

butts known about itsefetvenes,

Chjectie To vate he beefs harms, nd cst-fetvenes of supplement ultrasonography
screening fr women wh dense breasts,

Resouf lbaste-scse analysis: Supplemental ultrasonography screening aftea negate

SQUUSsteening mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years wth heterogeneously or etremely dense

breasts averted 036 adltna breast cancer deaths (ange across models 0.14to 0.75), gained 1.7

CAL (range 0 to, and ested in 354 bony recommendations ater be poste

ultasonograhy result (ange 345 42) pe 1000 women with dense breasts compared wth

bina screening by mammography alone, The cost efecteness ratio was $35 00 per QALY

gained (ang, $112000 to $7660) Supplemental ultrasonography screening for nly women wth

- eatemel dense rests cost $24060 per QALY gned (ang, $74000 to $5350)

Conclusion: Supplemental utrasonogrphy screening for women with dense breasts woul

substantaly increase costs while producing relatvely smal benefits,

Siéu dm vil 2D trong sang loc

+ Pha ign antodn khong nhiém xa, 4 chinh wdc ao

' Phat hin ton thong vot kich thud, 46 chinh vac tung dong

Xquang vi

+ Hung dn sin thi

' |: điển: phthuột linh nghiệm người làm, thôny dénh gi
duo vi voi hod

làm sàn l

+ Banh hn tử, tuổi
+ Kham sang oc ung thu’ wi dinh kj ktGng cb trigu ching bat thurbng


Xquang tú

Xquanvgi:

Mat tun ws type D

Krinqugan st thay ki nt bt

Uy

+ \fi:

Vitel th, céch nim vu $3 mm,

cach bé met da 18 mm, cach lop

( thà rực 3 mm, tú
nga thud ich thud

1)x6,7 mm, bo khong dev, sau

tm ngém thud manh va dong
nat, dudng. cong ngam thud

tl

(

VÀ Jlj)

NI

làm sàn l

> Bénh nh dure sinh thehtit kG uv tr

>i phéubénh

+ Ungthium xim ahd thing cbt md oc

dig), Kc thướt tùng u xm thập lít nh rn sinh tit O9mm

+ Khonthgay ug thư tâm nhập mạch bach hut, mach mau

* ER, PR: dug tinh 95% HERZ: dm tinh (0); KiG7: dvcng tinh 15%

Calsaanmg 2

+ Bénh nn nf, 28 tuoi, Kndm Kim trav do sthay kl ow tra

+ Siu dm: vite dh cach nim vd Som ob hôi giảm âm bi đều, gii

han 6, trung song song voi mat do kich thu‘ 2x12x19mm,

Vite 1230 cach nim vi Gem cb ton thy dang ri ogn cu tr

1dx8mmn,