The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening

Preventive Medicine

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 123-126

  Houssami, Nehmat ^a   Ciatto, Stefano ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b Breast Screening Program   (Italy)

Author keywords

Breast density; Breast imaging; Computer aided detection; Digital mammography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Population screening; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; BREAST; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; NOTE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

EID: 80052671522     PISSN: 00917435     EISSN: 10960260     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.05.003     Document Type: Note

References (41)

1. American College of Radiology (ACR) ACR BI-RADS: Breast imaging reporting and data system, Breast Imaging Atlas 2003, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.
2. Bennett R.L., Blanks R.G., Moss S.M. Does the accuracy of single reading with CAD (computer-aided detection) compare with that of double reading?: A review of the literature. Clin. Radiol. 2006, 61(12):1023-1028.
3. Berg W.A., Blume J.D., Cormack J.B., et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008, 299(18):2151-2163.
4. Buchberger W., Niehoff A., Obrist P., DeKoekkoek-Doll P., Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: Detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin. Ultrasound CT MR 2000, 21(4):325-336.
5. Ciatto S., Visioli C., Paci E., Zappa M. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br. J. Cancer 2004, 90(2):393-396.
6. Corsetti V., Houssami N., Ferrari A., et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur. J. Cancer 2008, 44(4):539-544.
7. Corsetti V., Houssami N., Ghirardi M., et al. Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Interval breast cancers at one year follow-up. Eur. J. Cancer 2011, 47:1021-1026.
8. Del Turco M.R., Mantellini P., Ciatto S., et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: Comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007, 189(4):860-866.
9. Dent R., Hanna W.M., Trudeau M., Rawlinson E., Sun P., Narod S.A. Pattern of metastatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2009, 115(2):423-428.
10. Dent R., Hanna W.M., Trudeau M., Rawlinson E., Sun P., Narod S.A. Time to disease recurrence in basal-type breast cancers: Effects of tumor size and lymph node status. Cancer 2009, 115(21):4917-4923.
11. Fenton J.J., Taplin S.H., Carney P.A., et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 356(14):1399-1409.
12. Gilbert F.J., Astley S.M., Gillan M.G.C., et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359(16):1675-1684.
13. Hambly N.M., McNicholas M.M., Phelan N., Hargaden G.C., O'Doherty A., Flanagan F.L. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: A review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009, 193(4):1010-1018.
14. Heddson B., Ronnow K., Olsson M., Miller D. Digital versus screen-film mammography: A retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur. J. Radiol. 2007, 64(3):419-425.
15. Houssami N., Given-Wilson R., Ciatto S. Early detection of breast cancer: Overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2009, 53(2):171-176.
16. Houssami N., Lord S.J., Ciatto S. Breast cancer screening: Emerging role of new imaging techniques as adjuncts to mammography. Med. J. Aust. 2009, 190(9):493-497.
17. Irwig L., Houssami N., Armstrong B., Glasziou P. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 2006, 332(7543):678-679.
18. Kaplan S.S. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001, 221(3):641-649.
19. Karssemeijer N., Bluekens A.M., Beijerinck D., et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009, 253(2):353-358.
20. Kelly K.M., Dean J., Comulada W.S., Lee S.J. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur. Radiol. 2010, 20(3):734-742.
21. Khoo L.A.L., Taylor P., Given-Wilson R.M. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: Prospective study. Radiology 2005, 237(2):444-449.
22. Kolb T.M., Lichy J., 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 2002, 225(1):165-175.
23. Kurian A.W., Sigal B.M., Plevritis S.K. Survival analysis of cancer risk reduction strategies for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28(2):222-231.
24. Leach M.O. 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(9473):1769-1778.
25. Lehman C.D., Blume J.D., Weatherall P., et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005, 103(9):1898-1905.
26. Lewin J.M., Hendrick R.E., D'Orsi C.J., et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001, 218(3):873-880.
27. Lord S.J., Lei W., Craft P., et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 2007, 43(13):1905-1917.
28. McCormack V.A., Dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15(6):1159-1169.
29. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353(17):1773-1783.
30. Rijnsburger A.J., Obdeijn I.M., Kaas R., et al. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: Long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28(36):5265-5273.
31. Sala M., Comas M., Macia F., Martinez J., Casamitjana M., Castells X. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: Effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 2009, 252(1):31-39.
32. 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(3):698-715.
33. 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. 2007, 57(2):75-89.
34. Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: Updated review. Acta Radiol. 2009, 50(1):3-14.
35. 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(7):679-689.
36. Skaane P., Hofvind S., Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: Follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007, 244(3):708-717.
37. Taylor P., Potts H.W.W. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: Two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur. J. Cancer 2008, 44(6):798-807.
38. Van Ongeval C., Van Steen A., Vande Putte G., et al. Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?. Eur. Radiol. 2010, 20(10):2307-2314.
39. Vigeland E., Klaasen H., Klingen T.A., Hofvind S., Skaane P. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: The vestfold county study. Eur. Radiol. 2008, 18(1):183-191.
40. Vinnicombe S., Pinto Pereira S.M., McCormack V.A., Shiel S., Perry N., Dos Santos Silva I.M. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: Comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 2009, 251(2):347-358.
41. 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. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2004, 292(11):1317-1325.