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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer
Published in: Breast Cancer 3/2016

01-05-2016 | Special Feature

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society clinical practice guidelines for screening and imaging diagnosis of breast cancer, 2015 edition

Authors: Mitsuhiro Tozaki, Yoshifumi Kuroki, Mari Kikuchi, Yasuyuki Kojima, Kazunori Kubota, Hiroshi Nakahara, Yoshinori Ito, Hirofumi Mukai

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Excerpt

In the 2015 edition of Clinical Practice Guidelines for screening and imaging diagnosis of breast cancer, the major revisions were as follows;
  • The recommended grade in screening CQ2 was updated.
    CQ2. Is screening mammography recommended for subjects aged 50 years or older? (Recommended from grade A to B).
  • Screening CQ4 was newly described.
    CQ4. Is digital breast tomosynthesis recommended for breast cancer screening? (Recommended grade C1).
  • The recommended grade in screening CQ6 was updated.
    CQ6. Is breast cancer screening with non-contrast MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging recommended? (Recommended from grade C2 to D).
  • Contents of imaging diagnosis CQ3 (formerly, imaging diagnosis CQ2) were updated.
    CQ3. Is ultrasonography recommended as a tool for differential assessment of benignancy/malignancy of mass or non-mass lesions of the breast? (Mass lesions;Recommended grade B, non-mass lesions;Recommended grade C1).
  • Contents of CQ and recommended grade in imaging diagnosis CQ9 have been modified.
    CQ9. Are liver ultrasonography, chest and abdominal CT, bone scintigraphy, and FDG-PET recommended as preoperative examinations?
    Liver ultrasonography, chest and abdominal CT, bone scintigraphy, and FDG-PET are recommended as preoperative examinations (staging) in patients with stage I or II initial primary breast cancer presenting with symptoms and/or findings indicative of distant metastasis and in patients with stage III initial primary breast cancer. (Recommended from grade C1 to B).
  • Imaging diagnosis CQ10 has been modified with respect to the recommended grade in CQ.
    CQ10. Is imaging diagnosis recommended for evaluation of axillary lymph nodes?
    Ultrasonography is recommended for preoperative evaluation of the axillary lymph node. (Recommended from grade C1 to B).
…
Literature
1.
Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) atlas. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.
2.
Kanemura S, Tsuji I, Ohuchi N, Takei H, Yokoe T, Koibuchi Y, et al. A case control study on the effectiveness of breast cancer screening by clinical breast examination in Japan. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1999;90(6):607–13.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Screening for breast cancer:U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716–726.
4.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening:an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778–86.CrossRef
5.
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial(DMIST)Investigators Group, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773–83.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM). Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Teh W, Wilson AR. The role of ultrasound in breast cancer screening. A consensus statement by the European Group for Breast Cancer Screening. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34(4):449–50.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Chapman A, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Berzaczy D, Van Noord MG, et al. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2013;(4): CD009632. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD009632.​pub2.
10.
Tozaki M, Fukuma E. 1H MR spectroscopy and diffusion weighted imaging of the breast:are they useful tools for characterizing breast lesions before biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(3):840–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kojima S, Zhou B, Teramukai S, Hara A, Kosaka N, Matsuo Y, et al. Cancer screening of healthy volunteers using whole-body 18F-FDG-PET scans: the Nishidai clinic study. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(12):1842–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Bassett LW, Ysrael M, Gold RH, Ysrael C. Usefulness of mammography and sonography in women less than 35 years of age. Radiology. 1991;180(3):831–5.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Osako T, Iwase T, Takahashi K, Iijima K, Miyagi Y, Nishimura S, et al. Diagnostic mammography and ultrasonography for palpable and nonpalpable breast cancer in women aged 30–39 years. Breast Cancer. 2007;14(3):255–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, ACRIN 6666 Investigators, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Ishida T, Suzuki A, Kawai M, Narikawa Y, Saito H, Yamamoto S, et al. A randomized controlled trial to verify the efficacy of the use of ultrasonography in breast cancer screening aged 40-49 (J-START): 76 196 women registered. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014;44(2):134–40.CrossRefPubMed
16.
American College of Radiology. BI-RADS:ultrasound, 2nd ed. In:Breast imaging reporting and data system:BI-RADS atlas, 5th ed. Reston:American College of Radiology; 2013.
17.
Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R, Franceschini G, Mulè A, Bonomo L. Characterization of solid breast masses:use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(5):649–59.PubMed
18.
Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography:positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR. 2005;184(4):1260–5.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E. Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US:in-terobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology. 2009;252(3):665–72.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management—follow-up and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248(3):773–81.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Wang LC, Sullivan M, Du H, Feldman MI, Mendelson EB. US appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics. 2013;33(1):213–28.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Tozaki M, Fukuma E. Category assessment based on 3D volume data acquired by automated breast ultrasonography. Jpn J Radiol. 2012;30(2):185–91.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Ko KH, Hsu HH, Yu JC, Peng YJ, Tung HJ, Chu CM, Chang TH, Chang WC, Wu YC, Lin YP, Hsu GC. Non-mass-like breast lesions at ultrasonography: feature analysis and BI-RADS assessment. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):77–85.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Schroeder RJ, Bostanjoglo M, Rademaker J, Maeurer J, Felix R. Role of power Doppler techniques and ultrasound contrast enhancement in the differential diagnosis of focal breast lesions. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(1):68–79.PubMed
25.
Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239(2):341–50.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Cho N, Moon WK, Kim HY, Chang JM, Park SH, Lyou CY. Sonoelastographic strain index for differentiation of benign and malignant nonpalpable breast masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29(1):1–7.PubMed
27.
Raza S, Odulate A, Ong EM, Chikarmane S, Harston CW. Using real-time tissue elastography for breast lesion evaluation. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29(4):551–63.PubMed
28.
Leong LC, Sim LS, Lee YS, Ng FC, Wan CM, Fook-Chong SM, et al. A prospective study to compare the diagnostic performance of breast elastography versus conventional breast ultrasound. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(11):887–94.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Yoon JH, Kim MH, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Kim MJ. Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography: how it affects the diagnosis of breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):730–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Nakashima K, Shiina T, Sakurai M, Enokido K, Endo T, Tsunoda H, Takada E, Umemoto T, Ueno E. JSUM ultrasound elastography practice guideline: breast. J Med Ultrasonics. 2013;40:359–91.CrossRef
31.
Meng W, Zhang G, Wu C, Wu G, Song Y, Lu Z. Preliminary results of acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) ultrasound imaging of breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011;37(9):1436–43.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Tozaki M, Isobe S, Sakamoto M. Combination of elastography and tissue quantification using the acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) technology for differential diagnosis of breast masses. Jpn J Radiol. 2012;30(8):659–70.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Tozaki M, Isobe S, Fukuma E. Preliminary study of ultrasonographic tissue quantification of the breast using the acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) technology. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(2):e182–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Doré CJ, Schäfer FK, Svensson WE, Hooley RJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology. 2012;262(2):435–49.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Tozaki M, Saito M, Benson J, Fan L, Isobe S. Shear wave velocity measurements for differential diagnosis of solid breast masses: a comparison between virtual touch quantification and virtual touch IQ. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39(12):2233–45.CrossRefPubMed
36.
37.
Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, Lawrence G, Kearins O, Pereira J, et al. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;345:e4505.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Obdeijn IM, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Spronk S, van Deurzen CH, de Monye C, Hunink MG, et al. Preoperative breast MRI can reduce the rate of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):304–10.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Wang SY, Kuntz KM, Tuttle TM, Jacobs DR Jr, Kane RL, Virnig BA. The association of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging and multiple breast surgeries among older women with early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138(1):137–47.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Akashi-Tanaka S, Sato N, Ohsumi S, Kimijima I, Inaji H, Teramoto S, Akiyama F. Evaluation of the usefulness of breast CT imaging in delineating tumor extent and guiding surgical management: a prospective multi-institutional study. Ann Surg. 2012;256(1):157–62.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;112(3):461–74.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Shimauchi A, Yamada T, Sato A, Takase K, Usami S, Ishida T, et al. Comparison of MDCT and MRI for evaluating the intraductal component of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):322–9.CrossRefPubMed
44.
American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2014.
45.
Tozaki M, Yamashiro N, Sakamoto M, Sakamoto N, Mizuuchi N, Fukuma E. Magnetic resonance-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results in 100 Japanese women. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28(7):527–33.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Brennan ME, Houssami N. Evaluation of the evidence on staging imaging for detection of asymptomatic distant metastases in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast. 2012;21(2):112–23.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Riegger C, Herrmann J, Nagarajah J, Hecktor J, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, et al. Whole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(5):852–63.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Aukema TS, Vogel WV, Oldenburg HS, van der Hage JA, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT as a staging procedure in primary stage II and III breast cancer: comparison with conventional imaging techniques. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131(1):117–26.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Alvarez S, Añorbe E, Alcorta P, López F, Alonso I, Cortés J. Role of sonography in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: a systematic review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(5):1342–8.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Esen G, Gurses B, Yilmaz MH, Ilvan S, Ulus S, Celik V, et al. Gray scale and power Doppler US in the preoperative evaluation of axillary metastases in breast cancer patients with no palpable lymph nodes. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(6):1215–23.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Quon A, Gambhir SS. FDG-PET and beyond: molecular breast cancer imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(8):1664–73.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Cooper KL, Harnan S, Meng Y, Ward SE, Fitzgerald P, Papaioannou D, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) for assessment of axillary lymph node status in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(3):187–98.CrossRefPubMed
53.
von Minckwitz G, Kümmel S, Vogel P, Hanusch C, Eidtmann H, Hilfrich J, German Breast Group, et al. Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-responding breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(8):552–62.CrossRef
54.
Siggelkow W, Rath W, Buell U, Zimny M. FDG PET and tumour markers in the diagnosis of recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(Suppl 1):S118–24.PubMed
55.
Eubank WB, Mankoff D, Bhattacharya M, Gralow J, Linden H, Ellis G, et al. Impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease and on the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(2):479–86.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Yap CS, Seltzer MA, Schiepers C, Gambhir SS, Rao J, Phelps ME, et al. Impact of whole-body 18F-FDG PET on staging and managing patients with breast cancer: the referring physician’s perspective. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(9):1334–7.PubMed
57.
Simmons C, Miller N, Geddie W, Gianfelice D, Oldfield M, Dranitsaris G, et al. Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases? Ann Oncol. 2009;20(9):1499–504.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Thompson AM, Jordan LB, Quinlan P, Anderson E, Skene A, Dewar JA, Breast Recurrence in Tissues Study Group, et al. Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer:the breast recurrence in tissues study (BRITS). Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(6):R92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Amir E, Miller N, Geddie W, Freedman O, Kassam F, Simmons C, et al. Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(6):587–92.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Balleine RL, Bilous M, Pegram MD. HER2 discordance between primary breast cancer and its paired metastasis:tumor biology or test artefact? Insights through metaanalysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(3):659–74.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Japanese Breast Cancer Society clinical practice guidelines for screening and imaging diagnosis of breast cancer, 2015 edition
Authors
Mitsuhiro Tozaki
Yoshifumi Kuroki
Mari Kikuchi
Yasuyuki Kojima
Kazunori Kubota
Hiroshi Nakahara
Yoshinori Ito
Hirofumi Mukai
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0674-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Breast Cancer 3/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

Breast sentinel lymph node navigation with three-dimensional computed tomography–lymphography: a 12-year study

Original Article

Histopathological characteristics of breast ductal carcinoma in situ and association with imaging findings

Special Feature

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society clinical practice guidelines for epidemiology and prevention of breast cancer, 2015 edition

Original Article

A randomized controlled study evaluating safety and efficacy of leuprorelin acetate every-3-months depot for 2 versus 3 or more years with tamoxifen for 5 years as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive breast cancer

Special Feature

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society clinical practice guideline for surgical treatment of breast cancer, 2015 edition

Original Article

Clinicopathological predictive factors for ipsilateral and contralateral events following initial surgery to treat ductal carcinoma in situ
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits