Breast cancer screening and problem solving using mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging

Ultrasound Quarterly

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 23-47

  Hooley, Regina J ^a   Andrejeva, Liva ^a   Scoutt, Leslie M ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer; mammography; MRI; screening; ultrasound

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS, MALE; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 79952181746     PISSN: 08948771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RUQ.0b013e31820e15ac     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51:15-36. (Pubitemid 32166444)
2. Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R, et al. Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: age-specific effects in Nijmegen Project, 1975-82. Lancet. 1985;325:865-866. (Pubitemid 15115130)
3. Nyström L, Wall S, Rutqvist LE, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet. 1993;341:973-978. (Pubitemid 23109165)
4. Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, et al. Canadian national breast screening study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ. 1992;147:1459-1476. (Pubitemid 23008476)
5. Moss SM, Summerley ME, Thomas BT, et al. A case-control evaluation of the effect of breast cancer screening in the United Kingdom trial of early detection of breast cancer. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1992;46:362-364.
6. Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, et al. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet. 2003;361:411-417.
7. Shapiro S. The status of breast cancer screening: a quarter of a century of research. World J Surg. 1989;13:9-18. (Pubitemid 19043563)
8. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995;273:149-154.
9. Duffy S, Tabar L, Chen H, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer. 2002;95:458-469. (Pubitemid 34810170)
10. Huynh PT, Jarolimek AM, Daye S. The false-negative mammogram. Radiographics. 1998;18:1137-1154. (Pubitemid 128466880)
11. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. 1993 ARRS President's Award. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:1167-1172. (Pubitemid 24008056)
12. Feig SA, Shaber GS, Patchefsky A, et al. Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1977;128:403-408. (Pubitemid 8051586)
13. Wallis MG,Walsh MT, Lee JR. A review of false negative mammography in a symptomatic population. Clin Radiol. 1991;44:13-15.
14. Kolb T, Lichy J, Newhouse J. 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.
15. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1081-1087. (Pubitemid 30616482)
16. Lewin J, D'Orsi C, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:671-677. (Pubitemid 34919579)
17. Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773-1783. (Pubitemid 41549889)
18. Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, et al. Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Acta Radiol. 2005;46:679-689.
19. Pisano E, Hendrick RE, Yaffe M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246:376-383.
20. Nelson H, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727-737.
21. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716-726.
22. Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, et al. Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1203-1210.
23. Hellquist B, Duffy S, Abdsaleh S, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish mammography screening in young women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer. 2010. [Epub ahead of print].
24. 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. 2000;21:325-336.
25. Crystal P, Strano S, Shcharynski S, et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:177-182. (Pubitemid 36741481)
26. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer. 1995;76:626-630.
27. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001;221:641-649. (Pubitemid 33101754)
28. Berg W. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:390-399.
29. Berg W. Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:895-906, vii. (Pubitemid 47410056)
30. Berg W, Blume J, Cormack J, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:2151-2163. (Pubitemid 351679706)
31. Berg W. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:845-851, vi. (Pubitemid 39165067)
32. Kuhl C, Schrading S, Leutner C, 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.
33. Hagen A, Kvistad K, Maehle L, et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast. 2007;16:367-374. (Pubitemid 47157808)
34. Hartman A, Daniel B, Kurian A, et al. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100:479-489. (Pubitemid 38124764)
35. Kriege M, Brekelmans CTM, 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. 2006;106:2318-2326. (Pubitemid 43787654)
36. Leach MO, Boggis CRM, Dixon AK, 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. 2005;365:1769-1778. (Pubitemid 40744657)
37. Lehman C, Isaacs C, Schnall M, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007;244:381-388. (Pubitemid 47080869)
38. Warner E, Plewes D, Hill K, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292: 1317-1325. (Pubitemid 39223222)
39. 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. 2007;242:698-715.
40. Lehman C, Blume J, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2005;103:1898-1905. (Pubitemid 40563263)
41. Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, et al. Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology. 1995;197: 387-395.
42. Liu PF, Debatin JF, Caduff RF, et al. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. Br J Radiol. 1998;71:501-509. (Pubitemid 28243071)
43. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG. Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model. Radiology. 2001;219:484-494. (Pubitemid 32336366)
44. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1993;187:493-501. (Pubitemid 23127861)
45. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244:356-378. (Pubitemid 47080868)
46. Kopans D. Breast Imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: LippincottWilliams & Wilkins; 2007.
47. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
48. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196:123-134.
49. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463-468.
50. Moy L, Elias K, Patel V, et al. Is breast MRI helpful in the evaluation of inconclusive mammographic findings? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:986-993.
51. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995;197:743-747.
52. Hlawatsch A, Teifke A, Schmidt M, et al. Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: sonography versus MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1493-1501. (Pubitemid 35386650)
53. Zhang Y, Fukatsu H, Naganawa S, et al. The role of contrast-enhanced MR mammography for determining candidates for breast conservation surgery. Breast Cancer. 2002;9:231-239.
54. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, et al. Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology. 1995;196:115-122.
55. Liberman L, Morris E, Dershaw DD, et al. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:901-910. (Pubitemid 36363023)
56. Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel S, et al. Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2003;98:468-473. (Pubitemid 36885985)
57. Kuhl C. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007;244:672-691. (Pubitemid 47292079)
58. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999;213:881-888.
59. Lee S, Orel S, Woo I, et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology. 2003;226:773-778.
60. Lehman C, Gatsonis C, Kuhl C, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1295-1303. (Pubitemid 46513295)
61. Liberman L, Morris E, Kim C, et al. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:333-341. (Pubitemid 36135009)
62. LaTrenta L, Menell J, Morris E, et al. Breast lesions detected with MR imaging: utility and histopathologic importance of identification with US. Radiology. 2003;227:856-861. (Pubitemid 36583048)
63. Sim LSJ, Hendriks JHCL, Bult P, et al. US correlation for MRI-detected breast lesions in women with familial risk of breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 2005;60:801-806. (Pubitemid 40867844)
64. Demartini W, Eby P, Peacock S, et al. Utility of targeted sonography for breast lesions that were suspicious on MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1128-1134.
65. Abe H, Schmidt R, Shah R, et al. MR-directed ("second-look") ultrasound examination for breast lesions detected initially on MRI: MR and sonographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:370-377.
66. Meissnitzer M, Dershaw DD, Lee C, et al. Targeted ultrasound of the breast in women with abnormal MRI findings for whom biopsy has been recommended. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1025-1029.
67. Morris E. Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18:57-74.
68. Stomper P, Recht A, Berenberg A, et al. Mammographic detection of recurrent cancer in the irradiated breast. Am J Roentgenol. 1987;148: 39-43. (Pubitemid 17005358)
69. Gilles R. Assessment of breast cancer recurrence with contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging: preliminary results in 26 patients. Radiology. 1993;188:473-448.
70. Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Dershaw DD, et al. MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Radiology. 1997;205:437-440.
71. Olson JA, Morris EA, Van Zee KJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging facilitates breast conservation for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:411-415. (Pubitemid 30439299)
72. Vilcoq JR. Conservative treatment of axillary adenopathy due to probable subclinical breast cancer. Arch Surg. 1982;117:1136-1138. (Pubitemid 12009749)
73. Henry-Tillman RS, Harms SE, Westbrook KC, et al. Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in determining breast as a source of unknown metastatic lymphadenopathy. Am J Surg. 1999;178:496-500. (Pubitemid 30058299)
74. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Baker JA, et al. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:1167-1170. (Pubitemid 32995561)
75. Tumyan L, Hoyt A, Bassett L. Negative predictive value of sonography and mammography in patients with focal breast pain. Breast J. 2005;11:333-337. (Pubitemid 41726036)
76. Tabar L, Dean PB, Pétek Z. Galactography: the diagnostic procedure of choice for nipple discharge. Radiology. 1983;149:31-38. (Pubitemid 13006799)
77. Urban J. Non-lactational nipple discharge. CA Cancer J Clin. 1978;28:130-140. (Pubitemid 8351751)
78. Leis HP.Management of nipple discharge. World J Surg. 1989;13:736-742.
79. Welch M, Durrans D, Gonzalez J, et al. Microdochectomy for discharge from a single lactiferous duct. Br J Surg. 1990;77:1213-1214.
80. Nakahara H, Namba K,Watanabe R, et al. A comparison of MR imaging, galactography and ultrasonography in patients with nipple discharge. Breast Cancer. 2003;10:320-329.
81. Morrogh M, Morris E, Liberman L, et al. The predictive value of ductography and magnetic resonance imaging in the management of nipple discharge. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3369-3377. (Pubitemid 350160109)
82. Renz D, Baltzer PAT, Böttcher J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of inflammatory breast carcinoma and acute mastitis. A comparative study. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2370-2380.
83. Rosen PP. Benign proliferative lesions of the male breast. Carcinoma of the male breast. In: Rosen's Breast Pathology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincottt, Williams & Wilkins; 1997:609.
84. Yitta S, Singer C, Toth H, et al. Image presentation. Sonographic appearances of benign and malignant male breast disease with mammographic and pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:931-947.
85. Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:831-843. (Pubitemid 47411641)
86. Gur D, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR AM J Roentegenol. 2009;193:586-591.