Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 7/2017

Open Access 01-07-2017 | Breast

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey

Authors: Francesco Sardanelli, Hildegunn S. Aase, Marina Álvarez, Edward Azavedo, Henk J. Baarslag, Corinne Balleyguier, Pascal A. Baltzer, Vanesa Beslagic, Ulrich Bick, Dragana Bogdanovic-Stojanovic, Ruta Briediene, Boris Brkljacic, Julia Camps Herrero, Catherine Colin, Eleanor Cornford, Jan Danes, Gérard de Geer, Gul Esen, Andrew Evans, Michael H. Fuchsjaeger, Fiona J. Gilbert, Oswald Graf, Gormlaith Hargaden, Thomas H. Helbich, Sylvia H. Heywang-Köbrunner, Valentin Ivanov, Ásbjörn Jónsson, Christiane K. Kuhl, Eugenia C. Lisencu, Elzbieta Luczynska, Ritse M. Mann, Jose C. Marques, Laura Martincich, Margarete Mortier, Markus Müller-Schimpfle, Katalin Ormandi, Pietro Panizza, Federica Pediconi, Ruud M. Pijnappel, Katja Pinker, Tarja Rissanen, Natalia Rotaru, Gianni Saguatti, Tamar Sella, Jana Slobodníková, Maret Talk, Patrice Taourel, Rubina M. Trimboli, Ilse Vejborg, Athina Vourtsis, Gabor Forrai

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50–69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1–10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40–49 years and 70–74 years, although with “limited evidence”. Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50–69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40–45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become “routine mammography” in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged.

Key points

EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography.
A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 5069 years.
Extension to 7375 and from 4045 to 49 years is also encouraged.
Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used.
DBT is set to becomeroutine mammographyin the screening setting in the next future.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Helbich TH, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) (2012) Mammography: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Insights Imaging 3(1):7–10CrossRefPubMed Sardanelli F, Helbich TH, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) (2012) Mammography: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Insights Imaging 3(1):7–10CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM (2015) Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ 351:h4901CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM (2015) Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ 351:h4901CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group et al (2015) Breast Cancer Screening – Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372(24):2353–2358CrossRefPubMed Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group et al (2015) Breast Cancer Screening – Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372(24):2353–2358CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Hofvind S, Sørum R, Thoresen S (2008) Incidence and tumor characteristics of breast cancer diagnosed before and after implementation of a population-based screening-program. Acta Oncol 47(2):225–231CrossRefPubMed Hofvind S, Sørum R, Thoresen S (2008) Incidence and tumor characteristics of breast cancer diagnosed before and after implementation of a population-based screening-program. Acta Oncol 47(2):225–231CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Cutuli B, Dalenc F, Cottu PH et al (2015) Impact of screening on clinicopathological features and treatment for invasive breast cancer: results of two national surveys. Cancer Radiother 19(5):295–302CrossRefPubMed Cutuli B, Dalenc F, Cottu PH et al (2015) Impact of screening on clinicopathological features and treatment for invasive breast cancer: results of two national surveys. Cancer Radiother 19(5):295–302CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Dong W, Berry DA, Bevers TB et al (2008) Prognostic role of detection method and its relationship with tumor biomarkers in breast cancer: the university of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark 17(5):1096–1103CrossRef Dong W, Berry DA, Bevers TB et al (2008) Prognostic role of detection method and its relationship with tumor biomarkers in breast cancer: the university of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark 17(5):1096–1103CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Nagtegaal ID, Allgood PC, Duffy SW et al (2011) Prognosis and pathology of screen-detected carcinomas: how different are they? Cancer 117(7):1360–1368CrossRefPubMed Nagtegaal ID, Allgood PC, Duffy SW et al (2011) Prognosis and pathology of screen-detected carcinomas: how different are they? Cancer 117(7):1360–1368CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Paci E, EUROSCREEN Working Group (2012) Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):5–13CrossRefPubMed Paci E, EUROSCREEN Working Group (2012) Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):5–13CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Colin C, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Sardanelli F (2014) Is breast cancer overdiagnosis also nested in pathologic misclassification? Radiology 273(3):652–655CrossRefPubMed Colin C, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Sardanelli F (2014) Is breast cancer overdiagnosis also nested in pathologic misclassification? Radiology 273(3):652–655CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Hauge IH, Pedersen K, Olerud HM, Hole EO, Hofvind S (2014) The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal. Acta Radiol 55(10):1174–1179CrossRefPubMed Hauge IH, Pedersen K, Olerud HM, Hole EO, Hofvind S (2014) The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal. Acta Radiol 55(10):1174–1179CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 258(1):98–105CrossRefPubMed Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 258(1):98–105CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Brkljacić B, Miletić D, Sardanelli F (2013) Thermography is not a feasible method for breast cancer screening. Coll Antropol 37(2):589–593PubMed Brkljacić B, Miletić D, Sardanelli F (2013) Thermography is not a feasible method for breast cancer screening. Coll Antropol 37(2):589–593PubMed
14.
go back to reference Kemp Jacobsen K, Abraham L, Buist DS et al (2015) Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol 39(4):656–663CrossRefPubMed Kemp Jacobsen K, Abraham L, Buist DS et al (2015) Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol 39(4):656–663CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Kemp Jacobsen K, O'Meara ES, Key D et al (2015) Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer 137(9):2198–2207CrossRefPubMed Kemp Jacobsen K, O'Meara ES, Key D et al (2015) Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer 137(9):2198–2207CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Freer PE (2015) Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. RadioGraphics 35(2):302–315CrossRefPubMed Freer PE (2015) Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. RadioGraphics 35(2):302–315CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Colin C, Prince V, Valette PJ (2013) Can mammographic assessments lead to consider density as a risk factor for breast cancer? Eur J Radiol 82(3):404–411CrossRefPubMed Colin C, Prince V, Valette PJ (2013) Can mammographic assessments lead to consider density as a risk factor for breast cancer? Eur J Radiol 82(3):404–411CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Colin C, Schott AM, Valette PJ (2014) Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening. Eur Radiol 24(10):2412–2416CrossRefPubMed Colin C, Schott AM, Valette PJ (2014) Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening. Eur Radiol 24(10):2412–2416CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh AP et al (2016) Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: Implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 279(3):710–719CrossRefPubMed Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh AP et al (2016) Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: Implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 279(3):710–719CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference McCormack VA, dos Santos SI (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(6):1159–1169CrossRefPubMed McCormack VA, dos Santos SI (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(6):1159–1169CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23(8):2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23(8):2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14(7):583–589CrossRefPubMed Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14(7):583–589CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26(1):184–190CrossRefPubMed Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26(1):184–190CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices 12(4):377–379CrossRefPubMed Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices 12(4):377–379CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S (2015) Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full field digital mammography. Breast 24(2):93–99CrossRefPubMed Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S (2015) Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full field digital mammography. Breast 24(2):93–99CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (TM) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19(2):166–171CrossRefPubMed Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (TM) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19(2):166–171CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view Digital Breast Tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projections images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271(3):655–663CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view Digital Breast Tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projections images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271(3):655–663CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2(6):737-743 McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2(6):737-743
32.
go back to reference Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71(2):141–150CrossRefPubMed Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71(2):141–150CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference van Breest SV, Nederend J, Voogd AC et al (2013) Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 109(1):242–248CrossRef van Breest SV, Nederend J, Voogd AC et al (2013) Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 109(1):242–248CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Castellano I, Deambrogio C, Muscarà F et al (2014) Efficiency of a preoperative axillary ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration cytology to detect patients with extensive axillary lymph node involvement. PLoS One 9(9), e106640CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Castellano I, Deambrogio C, Muscarà F et al (2014) Efficiency of a preoperative axillary ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration cytology to detect patients with extensive axillary lymph node involvement. PLoS One 9(9), e106640CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57(2):75–89CrossRefPubMed Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57(2):75–89CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference 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(8):1296–1316CrossRefPubMed 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(8):1296–1316CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition et al (2015) Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Eur Radiol 25(12):3669–3678CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition et al (2015) Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Eur Radiol 25(12):3669–3678CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey
Authors
Francesco Sardanelli
Hildegunn S. Aase
Marina Álvarez
Edward Azavedo
Henk J. Baarslag
Corinne Balleyguier
Pascal A. Baltzer
Vanesa Beslagic
Ulrich Bick
Dragana Bogdanovic-Stojanovic
Ruta Briediene
Boris Brkljacic
Julia Camps Herrero
Catherine Colin
Eleanor Cornford
Jan Danes
Gérard de Geer
Gul Esen
Andrew Evans
Michael H. Fuchsjaeger
Fiona J. Gilbert
Oswald Graf
Gormlaith Hargaden
Thomas H. Helbich
Sylvia H. Heywang-Köbrunner
Valentin Ivanov
Ásbjörn Jónsson
Christiane K. Kuhl
Eugenia C. Lisencu
Elzbieta Luczynska
Ritse M. Mann
Jose C. Marques
Laura Martincich
Margarete Mortier
Markus Müller-Schimpfle
Katalin Ormandi
Pietro Panizza
Federica Pediconi
Ruud M. Pijnappel
Katja Pinker
Tarja Rissanen
Natalia Rotaru
Gianni Saguatti
Tamar Sella
Jana Slobodníková
Maret Talk
Patrice Taourel
Rubina M. Trimboli
Ilse Vejborg
Athina Vourtsis
Gabor Forrai
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4612-z

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

European Radiology 7/2017 Go to the issue