Beyond Standard Mammographic Screening: Mammography at Age Extremes, Ultrasound, and MR Imaging

Radiologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 895-906

  Berg, Wendie A ^a  

^a Johns Hopkins Green Spring   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; AUTOMATION; AWARENESS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; DEVICE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; GENE MUTATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HETEROZYGOTE DETECTION; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RISK FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 34548657845     PISSN: 00338389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2007.06.001     Document Type: Review

References (78)

1. Humphrey L.L., Helfand M., Chan B.K., et al. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137 (2002) 347-360
2. Tabar L., Vitak B., Tony H.H., et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91 (2001) 1724-1731
3. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. Available at: www.seer.gov/. Accessed July 4, 2007.
4. Gail M.H., Brinton L.A., Byar D.P., et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81 (1989) 1879-1886
5. Gail M.H., and Costantino J.P. Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93 (2001) 334-335
6. Claus E.B., Risch N., and Thompson W.D. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 73 (1994) 643-651
7. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/. Accessed on July 4, 2007.
8. Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Leutner C.C., et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23 (2005) 8469-8476
9. Cortesi L., Turchetti D., Marchi I., et al. Breast cancer screening in women at increased risk according to different family histories: an update of the Modena Study Group experience. BMC Cancer 6 (2006) 210
10. Berry D.A., Iversen Jr. E.S., Gudbjartsson D.F., et al. BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Clin Oncol 20 (2002) 2701-2712
11. Struewing J.P., Hartge P., Wacholder S., et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 336 (1997) 1401-1408
12. Dershaw D.D. Are there any indications for routine breast cancer screening of asymptomatic women who are less than 40 years old?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172 (1999) 1136-1137
13. Aisenberg A.C., Finkelstein D.M., Doppke K.P., et al. High risk of breast carcinoma after irradiation of young women with Hodgkin's disease. Cancer 79 (1997) 1203-1210
14. Tinger A., Wasserman T.H., Klein E.E., et al. The incidence of breast cancer following mantle field radiation therapy as a function of dose and technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37 (1997) 865-870
15. Russo J., Frederick J., Ownby H.E., et al. Predictors of recurrence and survival of patients with breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 88 (1987) 123-131
16. Fisher E.R., Anderson S., Redmond C., et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project protocol B-06. 10-year pathologic and clinical prognostic discriminants. Cancer 71 (1993) 2507-2514
17. Michaelson J.S., Silverstein M., Sgroi D., et al. The effect of tumor size and lymph node status on breast carcinoma lethality. Cancer 98 (2003) 2133-2143
18. Smith R.A., Duffy S.W., Gabe R., et al. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned?. Radiol Clin North Am 42 (2004) 793-806 v
19. Zabicki K., Colbert J.A., Dominguez F.J., et al. Breast cancer diagnosis in women < or = 40 versus 50 to 60 years: increasing size and stage disparity compared with older women over time. Ann Surg Oncol 13 (2006) 1072-1077
20. Wolfe J.N., Saftlas A.F., and Salane M. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 148 (1987) 1087-1092
21. Boyd N.F., Byng J.W., Jong R.A., et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 87 (1995) 670-675
22. Harvey J.A., and Bovbjerg V.E. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230 (2004) 29-41
23. McCormack V.A., and dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15 (2006) 1159-1169
24. Boyd N.F., Guo H., Martin L.J., et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356 (2007) 227-236
25. D'Orsi C.J., Bassett L.W., Berg W.A., et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: mammography. 4th edition (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston (VA)
26. Stomper P.C., D'Souza D.J., DiNitto P.A., et al. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167 (1996) 1261-1265
27. Mandelson M.T., Oestreicher N., Porter P.L., et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (2000) 1081-1087
28. Kolb T.M., Lichy J., and Newhouse J.H. 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 225 (2002) 165-175
29. Tabar L., Vitak B., Chen H.H., et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 38 (2000) 625-651
30. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353 (2005) 1773-1783
31. Berg W.A. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 42 (2004) 845-851 vi
32. Kaplan S.S. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221 (2001) 641-649
33. Crystal P., Strano S.D., Shcharynski S., et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181 (2003) 177-182
34. Corsetti V., Ferrari A., Ghirardi M., et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med (Torino) 111 (2006) 440-448
35. Gordon P.B., and Goldenberg S.L. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. [see comments]. Cancer 76 (1995) 626-630
36. Buchberger W., Niehoff A., Obrist P., et al. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 21 (2000) 325-336
37. Berg W.A. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 (2003) 1225-1228
38. American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Available at: http://www.acrin.org/6666_protocol.html. Accessed July 4, 2007.
39. Farria D., and Feig S.A. An introduction to economic issues in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 38 (2000) 825-842
40. Farria D.M., Schmidt M.E., Monsees B.S., et al. Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow?. Cancer 104 (2005) 491-498
41. Liberman L., Morris E.A., Kim C.M., et al. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 (2003) 333-341
42. Lee S.G., Orel S.G., Woo I.J., et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology 226 (2003) 773-778
43. Berg W.A., Gutierrez L., Nessaiver M.S., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233 (2004) 830-849
44. Lehman C.D., Blume J.D., Thickman D., et al. Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial. J Surg Oncol 92 (2005) 9-15 [discussion: 15-6]
45. Lehman C.D., Gatsonis C., Kuhl C.K., et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356 (2007) 1295-1303
46. Morris E.A., Liberman L., Ballon D.J., et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181 (2003) 619-626
47. Port E.R., Park A., Borgen P.I., et al. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol 14 (2007) 1051-1057
48. Warner E., Plewes D.B., Hill K.A., et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292 (2004) 1317-1325
49. Leach M.O., Boggis C.R., Dixon A.K., et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365 (2005) 1769-1778
50. Sardanelli F., Podo F., D'Agnolo G., et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 242 (2007) 698-715
51. Kriege M., Brekelmans C.T., Boetes C., et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351 (2004) 427-437
52. Kriege M., Brekelmans C.T., Boetes C., et al. Differences between first and subsequent rounds of the MRISC breast cancer screening program for women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Cancer 106 (2006) 2318-2326
53. Ikeda D.M., Hylton N.M., Kuhl C.K., et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston (VA)
54. Plevritis S.K., Kurian A.W., Sigal B.M., et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 295 (2006) 2374-2384
55. Griebsch I., Brown J., Boggis C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95 (2006) 801-810
56. Saslow D., Boetes C., Burke W., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57 (2007) 75-89
57. Kerlikowske K., Grady D., Barclay J., et al. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. [see comments]. JAMA 276 (1996) 33-38
58. Yen M.F., Tabar L., Vitak B., et al. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 39 (2003) 1746-1754
59. Walter L.C., and Covinsky K.E. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. JAMA 285 (2001) 2750-2756
60. Smith-Bindman R., Kerlikowske K., Gebretsadik T., et al. Is screening mammography effective in elderly women?. Am J Med 108 (2000) 112-119
61. McPherson C.P., Swenson K.K., and Lee M.W. The effects of mammographic detection and comorbidity on the survival of older women with breast cancer. J Am Geriatr Soc 50 (2002) 1061-1068
62. Smith R.A., Saslow D., Sawyer K.A., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53 (2003) 141-169
63. Ballard-Barbash R., Klabunde C., Paci E., et al. Breast cancer screening in 21 countries: delivery of services, notification of results and outcomes ascertainment. Eur J Cancer Prev 8 (1999) 417-426
64. Sickles E.A., Wolverton D.E., and Dee K.E. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 224 (2002) 861-869
65. Leung J.W., Margolin F.R., Dee K.E., et al. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188 (2007) 236-241
66. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer Familial breast cancer. Collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including 58,209 women with breast cancer and 101,986 women without the disease. Lancet 358 (2001) 1389-1399
67. Easton D.F., Ford D., and Bishop D.T. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast cancer linkage consortium. Am J Hum Genet 56 (1995) 265-271
68. Lux M.P., Fasching P.A., and Beckmann M.W. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: review and future perspectives. J Mol Med 84 (2006) 16-28
69. Wooster R., and Weber B.L. Breast and ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 348 (2003) 2339-2347
70. Easton D.F. Familial risks of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 4 (2002) 179-181
71. Fisher B., Anderson S., Redmond C.K., et al. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 333 (1995) 1456-1461
72. Fisher B., Anderson S., Bryant J., et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347 (2002) 1233-1241
73. American Chemical Society. 2007. Available at: www.acs.org. Accessed July 18, 2007.
74. Frykberg E.R. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast J 5 (1999) 296-303
75. Dupont W.D., Parl F.F., Hartmann W.H., et al. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer 71 (1993) 1258-1265
76. Page D.L., Schuyler P.A., Dupont W.D., et al. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 361 (2003) 125-129
77. Mitchell G., Antoniou A.C., Warren R., et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Res 66 (2006) 1866-1872
78. Leconte I., Feger C., Galant C., et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 (2003) 1675-1679