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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 10/2018

Open Access 01-10-2018 | Breast

Frequency and characteristics of contralateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography

Authors: Joost R. C. Lameijer, Angela MP Coolen, Adri C. Voogd, Luc J. Strobbe, Marieke W. J. Louwman, Dick Venderink, Vivian C. Tjan-Heijnen, Lucien E. M. Duijm

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the frequency and characteristics of contralateral, non-recalled breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography.

Methods

We included a series of 130,338 screening mammograms performed between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2016. During the 1-year follow-up, clinical data were collected for all recalls. Screening outcome was determined for recalled women with or without evaluation of contralateral breast abnormalities.

Results

Of 3,995 recalls (recall rate 3.1%), 129 women (3.2%) underwent assessment of a contralateral, non-recalled breast abnormality. Most lesions were detected at clinical mammography and/or breast tomosynthesis (101 women, 78.3%). The biopsy rate was similar for recalled lesions and contralateral, non-recalled lesions, but the positive predictive value of biopsy was higher for recalled lesions (p = 0.01). A comparable proportion of the recalled lesions and contralateral, non-recalled lesions were malignant (p = 0.1). The proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ was similar for both groups, as well as invasive cancer characteristics and type of surgical treatment.

Conclusions

About 3% of recalled women underwent evaluation of contralateral, non-recalled breast lesions. Evaluation of the contralateral breast after recall is important as we found that 15.5% of contralateral, non-recalled lesions were malignant. Contralateral cancers and screen-detected cancers show similar characteristics, stage and surgical treatment.

Key Points

• 3% of recalled women underwent evaluation of contralateral, non-recalled lesions
• One out of seven contralateral, non-recalled lesions was malignant
• A contralateral cancer was diagnosed in 0.5% of recalls
• Screen-detected cancers and non-recalled, contralateral cancers showed similar histological characteristics
• Tumour stage and surgical treatment were similar for both groups
Literature
1.
Sankatsing VDV, van Ravesteyn NT, Heijnsdijk EAM et al (2017) The effect of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities on breast cancer mortality: 20 years of follow-up. Int J Cancer 141:671–677CrossRef
2.
Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW et al (2003) Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 361:1411–1417CrossRef
3.
Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ, Kramer BS (2016) Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 375:1438–1447CrossRef
4.
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRef
5.
Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17:1105–1113CrossRef
6.
Setz-Pels W, Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH et al (2011) Detection of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Radiology 260:357–363CrossRef
7.
Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ et al (2013) Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:226–231CrossRef
8.
Lei J, Yang P, Zhang L, Wang Y, Yang K (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 24:595–602CrossRef
9.
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al (2015) The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme—a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess 19:i–xxv 1-136CrossRef
10.
Lang K, Andersson I, Zackrisson S (2014) Breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography-a side-by-side review of discrepant cases. Br J Radiol 87:20140080CrossRef
11.
El Sharouni MA, Postma EL, Menezes GL et al (2016) High prevalence of MRI-detected contralateral and ipsilateral malignant findings in patients with invasive ductolobular breast cancer: impact on surgical management. Clin Breast Cancer 16:269–275CrossRef
12.
Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol 27:5640–5649CrossRef
13.
Wang SY, Long JB, Killelea BK et al (2016) Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging and contralateral breast cancer occurrence among older women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:321–328CrossRef
14.
Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, van Beek M, de Koning HJ (2004) Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer 91:1795–1799CrossRef
15.
Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston
16.
17.
Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA et al (2015) Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Eur Radiol 25:3669–3678CrossRef
18.
Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (eds) (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edn. Wiley, Chichester
19.
Maes RM, Dronkers DJ, Hendriks JH, Thijssen MA, Nab HW (1997) Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment? Br J Radiol 70:34–38CrossRef
20.
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622CrossRef
21.
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 2:737–743CrossRef
22.
Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol 24:1668–1676PubMed
23.
Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol 26:4371–4379CrossRef
24.
van Breest Smallenburg V, Duijm LE, Voogd AC et al (2012) Lower sensitivity of screening mammography after previous benign breast surgery. Int J Cancer 130:122–128CrossRef
25.
O'Brien JA, Ho A, Wright GP et al (2015) Breast-conserving surgery in bilateral breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3389–3396CrossRef
26.
Heron DE, Komarnicky LT, Hyslop T, Schwartz GF, Mansfield CM (2000) Bilateral breast carcinoma: risk factors and outcomes for patients with synchronous and metachronous disease. Cancer 88:2739–2750CrossRef
27.
Schaapveld M, Visser O, Louwman WJ et al (2008) The impact of adjuvant therapy on contralateral breast cancer risk and the prognostic significance of contralateral breast cancer: a population based study in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 110:189–197CrossRef
28.
Iacconi C, Galman L, Zheng J et al (2016) Multicentric cancer detected at breast MR imaging and not at mammography: important or not? Radiology 279:378–384CrossRef
29.
Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP et al (2016) Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 164:268–278CrossRef
30.
Houssami N, Abraham LA, Onega T et al (2014) Accuracy of screening mammography in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 145:765–773CrossRef
31.
Chandwani S, George PA, Azu M et al (2014) Role of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21:3473–3480CrossRef
32.
Vriens IJH, Keymeulen K, Lobbes MBI et al (2017) Breast magnetic resonance imaging use in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with less mastectomies in large ductal cancers but not in lobular cancers. Eur J Cancer 81:74–80CrossRef
33.
Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C et al (2015) Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med 162:157–166CrossRef
34.
Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O et al (2015) Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology 274:772–780CrossRef
35.
Provencher L, Hogue JC, Desbiens C et al (2016) Is clinical breast examination important for breast cancer detection? Curr Oncol 23:e332–e339CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Frequency and characteristics of contralateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography
Authors
Joost R. C. Lameijer
Angela MP Coolen
Adri C. Voogd
Luc J. Strobbe
Marieke W. J. Louwman
Dick Venderink
Vivian C. Tjan-Heijnen
Lucien E. M. Duijm
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5370-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

European Radiology 10/2018 Go to the issue

Computed Tomography

Scapholunate instability: improved detection with semi-automated kinematic CT analysis during stress maneuvers

Correction

Correction to: Magnetic resonance with diffusion-weighted imaging improves assessment of focal liver lesions in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer on CT

Musculoskeletal

Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT for the detection of bone marrow oedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Correction

Correction to: Reference ranges of left ventricular structure and function assessed by contrast-enhanced cardiac MR and changes related to ageing and hypertension in a population-based study

Magnetic Resonance

Initial experience of an investigational 3T MR scanner designed for use on neonatal wards

Computed Tomography

Early osteosclerotic changes predict chemotherapy response in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with bone metastases