A Systematic Review on Radiologists' Knowledge of Breast Cancer Screening

Sung Hun Kim

doi:10.3348/jksr.2019.80.1.8

Journal List > J Korean Soc Radiol > v.80(1) > 1141906

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

This article has been corrected. See "Erratum: A Systematic Review on Radiologists' Knowledge of Breast Cancer Screening" in Volume 80 on page 372.

TOOLS

Kim: A Systematic Review on Radiologists' Knowledge of Breast Cancer Screening

Review Article

J Korean Soc Radiol 2019;80(1):8-18.

Published online: 20 January 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2019.80.1.8

A Systematic Review on Radiologists' Knowledge of Breast Cancer Screening

Sung Hun Kim, MD^∗

Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

^∗Corresponding author Sung Hun Kim, MD Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea. Tel 82-2-2258-1452 Fax 82-2-599-6771 E-mail rad-ksh@catholic.ac.kr

Received 7 November 2018 Revised 21 December 2018 Accepted 28 December 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Mammography screening has been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality and remains the primary screening method. However, the harms of false-positive results and over-diagnosis have recently been emphasized, and screening guidelines have been revised. Breast ultrasonography screening has the advantage of detecting mammographically occult breast cancers in dense breasts; however, false-positive results and rising medical costs due to increased biopsy recommendations create a problem. Till date, recommendations for breast ultrasonography^screenings have not been established. Magnetic resonance imaging is recommended for women at high risk and has excellent sensitivity, but it is expensive and inferior in accessibility. This article reviews the benefits, harms, and guidelines of methods commonly used in breast cancer screening. This review also provides breast cancer screening methods according to individual breast cancer risk.

References

1. Youlden DR, Cramb SM, Yip CH, Baade PD. Incidence and mortality of female breast cancer in the Asia-Pacific region.Cancer Biol Med. 2014; 11:101–115.

2. Korea Central Cancer Registry NCC.Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2014. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare;2016.

3. Korean Breast Cancer Society. Basic cancer facts and f/iigures 2017. Seoul: Korean Breast Cancer Society;2017.

4. The Global Cancer Observatory. International Association of Cancer Registiries. Available at.http://globo-can.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer. Accessed Sep 1,. 2016.

5. Niell BL, Freer PE, Weinfurtner RJ, Arleo EK, Drukteinis JS. Screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2017; 55:1145–1162.

6. Tabár L, Yen AM, Wu WY, Chen SL, Chiu SY, Fann JC, et al. Insights from the breast cancer screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs.Breast J. 2015; 21:13–20.

7. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YC, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015; 314:1599–1614.

8. Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP randomized controlled trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997; 22:27–30.

9. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002; 359:909–919.

10. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011; 260:658–663.

11. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, Forrest AP, Hepburn W, Kirkpatrick AE, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet. 1999; 353:1903–1908.

12. Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ, Sun P, To T, Narod SA. Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ. 2014.

13. Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian national breast screening study: a critical review.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993; 161:755–760.

14. Frisell J, Lidbrink E, Hellström L, Rutqvist LE. Followup after 11 years–update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997; 45:263–270.

15. Bjurstam N, Björneld L, Warwick J, Sala E, Duffy SW, Nyström L, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial. Cancer. 2003; 97:2387–2396.

16. G⊘tzsche PC, J⊘rgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 6:CD001877.

17. Kim SY, Kim EK. Benefits and harms of breast screening: focused on updated Korean guideline for breast cancer screening. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2016; 74:147–155.

18. Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, Havrilesky LJ, Grimm LJ, Ghate S, et al. Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015; 314:1615–1634.

19. Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164:256–267.

20. Feig SA. Screening mammography benefit controversies: sorting the evidence. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014; 52:455–480.

21. Nelson HD. Mammography screening and overdiagnosis. JAMA Oncol. 2016; 2:261–262.

22. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367:1998–2005.

23. Kopans DB. Breast-cancer tumor size and screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:93–94.

24. Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics. 2015; 35:302–315.

25. Siu AL. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164:279–296.

26. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Hendrick RE, Helvie MA, Moy L, Monsees B, et al. Breast cancer screening for average-risk women: recommendations from the ACR commission on breast imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14:1137–1143.

27. Laine C, Dickersin K, Mulrow C. Time to douse the firestorm around breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164:303–304.

28. Lee EH, Park B, Kim NS, Seo HJ, Ko KL, Min JW, et al. The Korean guideline for breast cancer screening. J Korean Med Assoc. 2015; 58:408–419.

29. Trentham-Dietz A, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, Miglioretti DL, Schechter CB, Ergun MA, et al. Tailoring breast cancer screening intervals by breast density and risk for women aged 50 years or older: collaborative modeling of screening outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 165:700–712.

30. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res. 2011; 13:223.

31. Rajaram N, Mariapun S, Eriksson M, Tapia J, Kwan PY, Ho WK, et al. Differences in mammographic density between Asian and Caucasian populations: a comparative analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017; 161:353362.

32. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J. 2012; 18:517–522.

33. 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.

34. Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387:341–348.

35. Brem RF, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman J, Torrente J. Screening breast ultrasound: past, present, and future. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204:234–240.

36. Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED. Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: analysis from ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108:djv367.

37. Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162:157–166.

38. Berg WA, Gur D. Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162:801.

39. Weigert JM. The connecticut experiment; the third installment: 4 years of screening women with dense breasts with bilateral ultrasound. Breast J. 2017; 23:34–39.

40. Burkett BJ, Hanemann CW. A review of supplemental screening ultrasound for breast cancer: certain populations of women with dense breast tissue may benefit. Acad Radiol. 2016; 23:1604–1609.

41. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, Arand B, Bieling H, König R, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to re fine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial.J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28:1450–1457.

42. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15:408–414.

43. Vourtsis A, Berg WA. Breast density implications and supplemental screening. Eur Radiol. 2018. [In press].

44. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines). Genetic/familial high-r/iisk assessment: breast and ovarian. Fort. Washington: NCCN;2018.

45. National Cancer Institute. The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. Available at.https://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/download-source-code.aspx. Accessed May 11,. 2016.

46. Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P, Didwania AD, diFlorio RM, Green ED, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14:S383–S390.

Fig. 1.

Screening recommendation according to breast cancer risk.

Table 1.

Results of Randomized Controlled Trials of Mammography Screening

Trial	Trial Year	Country	Age (Years)	Mortality Reduction
Trial	Trial Year	Country	Age (Years)	%	95% CI
HIP (8)	1963	USA	40–64	22 %	0 to 39 95% CI
Malmo (9)	1976	Sweden	45–69	22	5 to 35
Two-country (10)	1977	Sweden	40–74	27	11 to 41
Edinburgh (11)	1978	Scotland	45–64	21	-2 to 40
NBSS1 and NBSS2 (12)	1980	Canada	40–59	1	-12 to 12
Stockholm (14)	1981	Sweden	40–64	10	-28 to 37
Gothenborg (15)	1982	Sweden	40–59	23	0 to 40
Overall				²0	14 to 27

CI = confidence interval, HIP = Health Insurance Plan, NBSS = National Breast Screening Trial

Table 2.

Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening

	Age to Start (Year)	Screening Interval	Age to Stop (Year)
ACR	40+	Annual	Continue as along as in good health
^ACS	45–54	Annual	Until approximately 10 years of life left
	55+	Biennial
USPSTF	50–74	Biennial	75+
KNCSP	40–69	Biennial	70+

KNCSP 4069 Biennial 70+ ACR = American College of Radiology, ACS = American Cancer Society, KNCSP = Korean National Cancer Screening Program, USPSTF = US Preventive Services Task Force

TOOLS

Similar articles