J Korean Soc Radiol JKSR Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 1738-2637 2288-2928 The Korean Society of Radiology 10.3348/jksr.2015.73.5.279 Breast Radiology Breast Cancer Screening in Korean Woman with Dense Breast Tissue Shin Hee Jung MD 1 Ko Eun Sook MD 2 Yi Ann MD 3 Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. Department of Radiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Corresponding author: Hee Jung Shin, MD. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea. Tel. 82-2-3010-5983, Fax. 82-2-476-4719, docshin@amc.seoul.kr 11 2015 28 10 2015 73 5 279 286 17 06 2015 02 09 2015 16 09 2015 Copyright © 2015 The Korean Society of Radiology 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Asian women, including Korean, have a relatively higher incidence of dense breast tissue, compared with western women. Dense breast tissue has a lower sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer and a higher relative risk for breast cancer, compared with fatty breast tissue. Thus, there were limitations in the mammographic screening for women with dense breast tissue, and many studies for the supplemental screening methods. This review included appropriate screening methods for Korean women with dense breasts. We also reviewed the application and limitation of supplemental screening methods, including breast ultrasound, digital breast tomosynthesis, and breast magnetic resonance imaging; and furthermore investigated the guidelines, as well as the study results.

 Dense Breast Breast Cancer Screening Korean Women Korean Society of Radiology Acknowledgments

This study was performed by a grant from Korean Society of Radiology.

 Kim SH Kim MH Oh KK Analysis and comparison of breast density according to age on mammogram between Korean and western women J Korean Radiol Soc 2000 42 1009 1014 Stomper PC D'Souza DJ DiNitto PA Arredondo MA Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996 167 1261 1265 Fletcher SW Black W Harris R Rimer BK Shapiro S Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 1993 85 1644 1656 Feig SA Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40-49 years Cancer 1997 80 2035 2039 Boyd NF Guo H Martin LJ Sun L Stone J Fishell E Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer N Engl J Med 2007 356 227 236 Tice JA Cummings SR Ziv E Kerlikowske K Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005 94 115 122 Hasegawa S Ohnuki K Nagakubo J Kitami A Oyama K Koizumi R Breast cancer imaging by mammography: effects of age and breast composition J Jpn Assoc Breast Cancer Screen 2003 12 101 107 Suzuki A Kuriyama S Kawai M Amari M Takeda M Ishida T Age-specific interval breast cancers in Japan: estimation of the proper sensitivity of screening using a population-based cancer registry Cancer Sci 2008 99 2264 2267 Uchida K Yamashita A Kawase K Kamiya K Screening ultrasonography revealed 15% of mammographically occult breast cancers Breast Cancer 2008 15 165 116 Ohuchi N Ishida T Kawai M Narikawa Y Yamamoto S Sobue T Randomized controlled trial on effectiveness of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-49 (J-START): research design Jpn J Clin Oncol 2011 41 275 277 Ishida T Suzuki A Kawai M Narikawa Y Saito H Yamamoto S A randomized controlled trial to verify the efficacy of the use of ultrasonography in breast cancer screening aged 40-49 (J-START): 76 196 women registered Jpn J Clin Oncol 2014 44 134 140 Ohnuki K Tsunoda H Tohno E Iisato U Endo T Oiwa M The criteria for mammography screening combined with ultrasonography J Jpn Assoc Breast Cancer Screen 2012 21 273 279 Kwak JY Kim EK Jung HK Park HL Kwon TH The usefulness of additional bilateral whole breast US with negative mammographic results in asymptomatic women J Korean Radiol Soc 2005 53 451 456 Bae MS Moon WK Chang JM Koo HR Kim WH Cho N Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography Radiology 2014 270 369 377 Barton MB Harris R Fletcher SW The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How? JAMA 1999 282 1270 1128 Nemec CF Listinsky J Rim A How should we screen for breast cancer? Mammography, ultrasonography, MRI Cleve Clin J Med 2007 74 897 890 Carney PA Miglioretti DL Yankaskas BC Kerlikowske K Rosenberg R Rutter CM Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography Ann Intern Med 2003 138 168 175 Berg WA Blume JD Cormack JB Mendelson EB Lehrer D Böhm-Vélez M Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer JAMA 2008 299 2151 2163 Kuhl CK Schrading S Leutner CC Morakkabati-Spitz N Wardelmann E Fimmers R Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer J Clin Oncol 2005 23 8469 8476 California breast density information group Breast density, breast cancer risk, and California breast density notification law SB 1538: scenarios for clinicians 2013 Accessed June 3, 2015 Available at: http://www.breastdensity.info/docs/DENSITY-SCENARIOS-FOR-CLINICIANS.pdf Saslow D Boetes C Burke W Harms S Leach MO Lehman CD American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography CA Cancer J Clin 2007 57 75 89 Kriege M Brekelmans CT Boetes C Besnard PE Zonderland HM Obdeijn IM Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition N Engl J Med 2004 351 427 437 Bevers TB Anderson BO Bonaccio E Buys S Daly MB Dempsey PJ NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009 7 1060 1096 Mann RM Kuhl CK Kinkel K Boetes C Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging Eur Radiol 2008 18 1307 1318 Gordon PB Goldenberg SL Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review Cancer 1995 76 626 663 Buchberger W Niehoff A Obrist P DeKoekkoek-Doll P Dünser M Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000 21 325 336 Kaplan SS Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue Radiology 2001 221 641 649 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 225 165 175 Crystal P Strano SD Shcharynski S Koretz MJ Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003 181 177 182 Hooley RJ Greenberg KL Stackhouse RM Geisel JL Butler RS Philpotts LE Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41 Radiology 2012 265 59 69 Kelly KM Richwald GA Automated whole-breast ultrasound: advancing the performance of breast cancer screening Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011 32 273 280 Houssami N Skaane P Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection Breast 2013 22 101 108 Kopans DB Digital breast tomosynthesis: a better mammogram Radiology 2013 267 968 969 Skaane P Bandos AI Gullien R Eben EB Ekseth U Haakenaasen U Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program Radiology 2013 267 47 56 Rose SL Tidwell AL Bujnoch LJ Kushwaha AC Nordmann AS Sexton R Jr Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013 200 1401 1408 Haas BM Kalra V Geisel J Raghu M Durand M Philpotts LE Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening Radiology 2013 269 694 700 Ciatto S Houssami N Bernardi D Caumo F Pellegrini M Brunelli S Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study Lancet Oncol 2013 14 583 589 Wolfe JN Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern Cancer 1976 37 2486 2492 Cummings SR Tice JA Bauer S Browner WS Cuzick J Ziv E Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk J Natl Cancer Inst 2009 101 384 398 National Comprehensive Cancer Network NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN guidelines®) Philadelphia National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2015 Lee CH Dershaw DD Kopans D Evans P Monsees B Monticciolo D 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 18 27 Review of Studies about Screening Breast Ultrasound
Author Number Cancers/1000 Cancers Size (mm) Invasive Cancer (%)*
Gordon and Goldenberg (25) 12706 3 44 11 100
Buchberger et al. (26) 8103 4.1 40 9.1 97.5
Kaplan (27) 1862 3 6 9.0 83
Kolb et al. (28) 13547 2.3 37 9.9 97
Crystal et al. (29) 1517 4.6 7 9.6 100
Berg et al. (ACRIN 6666) (18) 2809 4.2 32 10 94

*Invasive cancer (%) represent a percentage of invasive cancer among all cancers.

 Review of Studies about Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
Author Number of Patients Recall Rate (%) Cancer Detection Rate (%)
2D 2D + DBT 2D 2D + DBT
Skaane et al. (34) 12631 6.1 5.3 6.1 8.0
Rose et al. (35) 9256 8.7 5.5 4.0 5.4
Haas et al. (36) 1602 DBT 12 8.4 5.2 5.7
4178 DM
Ciatto et al. (37) 7292 4.4 3.5 5.3 8.1

2D = two-dimensional digital mammography, DBT = digital breast tomosynthesis, DM = diabetes mellitus