PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
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.
Figures and Tables
Table 1
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 |
Table 2
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 |
References
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Feig SA. Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40-49 years. Cancer. 1997; 80:2035–2039.
5. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356:227–236.
6. 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.
7. Hasegawa S, Ohnuki K, Nagakubo J, Kitami A, Oyama K, Koizumi R, et al. Breast cancer imaging by mammography: effects of age and breast composition. J Jpn Assoc Breast Cancer Screen. 2003; 12:101–107.
8. Suzuki A, Kuriyama S, Kawai M, Amari M, Takeda M, Ishida T, et al. 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.
9. Uchida K, Yamashita A, Kawase K, Kamiya K. Screening ultrasonography revealed 15% of mammographically occult breast cancers. Breast Cancer. 2008; 15:165–116.
10. 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.
11. Ishida T, Suzuki A, Kawai M, Narikawa Y, Saito H, Yamamoto S, et al. 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.
12. Ohnuki K, Tsunoda H, Tohno E, Iisato U, Endo T, Oiwa M, et al. The criteria for mammography screening combined with ultrasonography. J Jpn Assoc Breast Cancer Screen. 2012; 21:273–279.
13. 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.
14. Bae MS, Moon WK, Chang JM, Koo HR, Kim WH, Cho N, et al. Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology. 2014; 270:369–377.
15. 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.
16. Nemec CF, Listinsky J, Rim A. How should we screen for breast cancer? Mammography, ultrasonography, MRI. Cleve Clin J Med. 2007; 74:897–890.
17. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. 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.
18. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008; 299:2151–2163.
19. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. 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.
20. 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.
21. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57:75–89.
22. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. 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.
23. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009; 7:1060–1096.
24. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18:1307–1318.
25. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer. 1995; 76:626–663.
26. 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.
27. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001; 221:641–649.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Kelly KM, Richwald GA. Automated whole-breast ultrasound: advancing the performance of breast cancer screening. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2011; 32:273–280.
32. Houssami N, Skaane P. Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast. 2013; 22:101–108.
33. Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a better mammogram. Radiology. 2013; 267:968–969.
34. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013; 267:47–56.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14:583–589.
38. Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer. 1976; 37:2486–2492.
39. Cummings SR, Tice JA, Bauer S, Browner WS, Cuzick J, Ziv E, et al. Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101:384–398.
40. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN guidelines®). Philadelphia: National Comprehensive Cancer Network;2015.
41. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, et al. 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.
XML Download