Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 6/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Review

Breast imaging surveillance after curative treatment for primary non-metastasised breast cancer in non-high-risk women: a systematic review

Authors: Jeroen Swinnen, Machteld Keupers, Julie Soens, Matthias Lavens, Sandra Postema, Chantal Van Ongeval

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The article summarises the available guidelines on breast imaging surveillance after curative treatment for locoregional breast cancer.

Methods

A systematic review of practice guidelines published from 1 January 2007 to 1 January 2017 was performed according to PRISMA methodology. The search was conducted for the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. On 8 July 2018, all included guidelines were updated to the most recent version.

Results

Twenty-one guidelines originating from 18 publishing bodies matched criteria. Publishing bodies consisted of seven governmental institutions, nine medical societies and two mixed collaborations. Publishing boards consisted of six radiological, four oncological, and 11 multidisciplinary teams. Annual bilateral mammography surveillance after breast-conserving therapy was recommended by 17/18 (94.4%) publishing bodies. Annual contralateral mammography surveillance after mastectomy was recommended by 13/18 (72.2%) publishing bodies. Routine use of digital breast tomosynthesis was recommended by 1/18 (5.6%) publishing bodies. Routine breast ultrasound surveillance was recommended by 2/18 (11.1%), deemed optional by 4/18 (22.2%) and not supported by 8/18 (44.4%) publishing bodies. Routine breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance was not recommended by 16/18 (88.9%) publishing bodies, although 6/18 (33.3%) specified subgroups for systematic MRI surveillance.

Conclusions

Annual mammography is currently the ‘gold standard’ for breast imaging surveillance. The role of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) remains to be further investigated. Most guidelines do not recommend routine breast ultrasound or MRI surveillance, unless indicated by additional risk factors.
Literature
1.
Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49:1374–1403CrossRef
2.
3.
Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC et al (2016) Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:271–289CrossRef
4.
Bucchi L, Belli P, Benelli E et al (2016) Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by SIRM. Radiol Med 121:891–896CrossRef
5.
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57:75–89CrossRef
6.
Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P et al (2017) ACR appropriateness criteria® breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 14:S383–s390CrossRef
7.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2017) NICE clinical guideline 164 [CG164]: Familial breast cancer: classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester. Available via https://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​guidance/​cg164. Accessed 22 July 2018
8.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269 w264CrossRef
9.
Moy L, Bailey L, D’Orsi C et al (2017) ACR appropriateness criteria® stage I breast cancer: initial workup and surveillance for local recurrence and distant metastases in asymptomatic women. J Am Coll Radiol 14:S282–s292CrossRef
10.
Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA (2018) Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol 15:408–414CrossRef
11.
Runowicz CD, Leach CR, Henry NL et al (2016) American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology breast cancer survivorship care guideline. CA Cancer J Clin 66:43–73CrossRef
12.
Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E et al (2013) Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31:961–965
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S et al (2015) Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26:v8–v30CrossRef
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2018) NICE guideline 101 [NG101]: Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester. Available via https://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​guidance/​ng101. Accessed 22 July 2018
26.
27.
28.
Krishnamurthy R, Whitman GJ, Stelling CB, Kushwaha AC (1999) Mammographic findings after breast conservation therapy. Radiographics 19:S53–S62CrossRef
29.
Lin K, Eradat J, Mehta NH et al (2008) Is a short-interval postradiation mammogram necessary after conservative surgery and radiation in breast cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72:1041–1047CrossRef
30.
Hymas RV, Gaffney DK, Parkinson BT, Belnap TW, Sause WT (2012) Is short-interval mammography necessary after breast conservation surgery and radiation treatment in breast cancer patients? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:519–524CrossRef
31.
Robertson C, Arcot Ragupathy SK, Boachie C et al (2011) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different surveillance mammography regimens after the treatment for primary breast cancer: systematic reviews registry database analyses and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 15:v–vi 1-322CrossRef
32.
Dunn JA, Donnelly PK, Marshall A et al (2014) Follow-up in early breast cancer—a surgical and radiological perceptive. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 26:625–629CrossRef
33.
Arasu VA, Joe BN, Lvoff NM et al (2012) Benefit of semiannual ipsilateral mammographic surveillance following breast conservation therapy. Radiology 264:371–377CrossRef
34.
de Bock GH, Bonnema J, Zwaan RE, van de Velde CJ, Kievit J, Stiggelbout AM (2004) Patient’s needs and preferences in routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 90:1144–1150CrossRef
35.
Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Jack WJ et al (2007) Changing pattern of the detection of locoregional relapse in breast cancer: the Edinburgh experience. Br J Cancer 96:1802–1807CrossRef
36.
Houssami N, Ciatto S (2010) Mammographic surveillance in women with a personal history of breast cancer: how accurate? How effective? Breast 19:439–445CrossRef
37.
Houssami N, Ciatto S, Martinelli F, Bonardi R, Duffy SW (2009) Early detection of second breast cancers improves prognosis in breast cancer survivors. Ann Oncoll 20:1505–1510
38.
Freyvogel M, Padia S, Larson K et al (2014) Screening mammography following autologous breast reconstruction: an unnecessary effort. Ann Surg Oncol 21:3256–3260CrossRef
39.
Lee JM, Georgian-Smith D, Gazelle GS et al (2008) Detecting nonpalpable recurrent breast cancer: the role of routine mammographic screening of transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstructions. Radiology 248:398–405CrossRef
40.
Lam DL, Houssami N, Lee JM (2017) Imaging surveillance after primary breast cancer treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:676–686CrossRef
41.
Sia J, Moodie K, Bressel M et al (2016) A prospective study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography in surveillance after breast cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer 61:122–127CrossRef
42.
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404CrossRef
43.
Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316
44.
Weinstock C, Campassi C, Goloubeva O et al (2015) Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance in breast cancer survivors. Springerplus 4:459CrossRef
45.
Lehman CD, Lee JM, DeMartini WB et al (2016) Screening MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 108:djv349CrossRef
46.
Cho N, Han W, Han BK et al (2017) Breast cancer screening with mammography plus ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging in women 50 years or younger at diagnosis and treated with breast conservation therapy. JAMA Oncol 3:1495–1502CrossRef
47.
Houssami N, Abraham LA, Kerlikowske K et al (2013) Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22:946–961
48.
Witteveen A, Vliegen IM, Sonke GS, Klaase JM, IJzerman MJ, Siesling S (2015) Personalisation of breast cancer follow-up: a time-dependent prognostic nomogram for the estimation of annual risk of locoregional recurrence in early breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 152:627–636CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Breast imaging surveillance after curative treatment for primary non-metastasised breast cancer in non-high-risk women: a systematic review
Authors
Jeroen Swinnen
Machteld Keupers
Julie Soens
Matthias Lavens
Sandra Postema
Chantal Van Ongeval
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 6/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-018-0667-5

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Insights into Imaging 6/2018 Go to the issue

Pictorial Review

Common artefacts encountered on images acquired with combined compressed sensing and SENSE

Review

The European Diploma in Radiology (EDiR): investing in the future of the new generations of radiologists

Pictorial Review

Enteric duplication cysts in children: varied presentations, varied imaging findings

Review

Radiomics and liquid biopsy in oncology: the holons of systems medicine

Pictorial Review

Pictorial review of the pulmonary vasculature: from arteries to veins

Opinion

Radiomics: a critical step towards integrated healthcare