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
Current Breast Cancer Reports
Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports 3/2012

01-09-2012 | Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Role of Mammography versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening

Authors: Linei Urban, Cícero Urban

Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports | Issue 3/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Mammographic screening has been proven to detect breast cancer at an early stage and to reduce mortality from breast cancer. Nevertheless, some limitations concerning sensitivity, as well as adverse effects such as false negatives and radiosensitivity, has led to a need to search for other screening techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging has been an excellent choice for some specific subgroups, including patients at high risk. However, high cost, low availability, and lack of long-term trials aiming to prove the reduction of mortality have limited magnetic resonance application. Moreover, some points about breast cancer screening still need to be clarified, including overdiagnosis rate, which includes cancers that would not have become clinically significant during the woman’s lifetime, and cost effectiveness. In this review, the authors analyze the role of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening for the general and high-risk populations.
Literature
1.
Jackman VP. Screening mammography: controversies and headlines. Radiology. 2002;225:323–6.CrossRef
2.
Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, et al. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet. 2003;361:1405–10.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Chu KC, Smart CR, Taronev RE. Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the Health Insurance Plan Clinical Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;80:1125–32.CrossRef
4.
Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: update results from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:63–7.PubMed
5.
Bjurstam N, Björnald L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer. 1997;80:2091–9.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Brown D. Deaths rates from breast cancer fall by a third. BMJ. 2000;321:849.CrossRef
7.
Frisell J, Bidbrink E, Hellstrom L. Rutqvist L.-E. Follow-up after 11 years: update of mortality results in the Stockholm Mammographic Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997;45:263–70.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: I. breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40–49 years. Can Med Assoc J. 1992;147:1459–76.
9.
Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: II. breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50–59 years. Can Med Assoc J. 1992;147:1447–88.
10.
Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer. 1995;75:2507–17.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L, et al. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Nath Cancer Inst. 1982;69:349–55.
12.
Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S. Koretz MJ Using sonography to screen women with mammographycally dense breast. AJR. 2003;181:177–82.PubMed
13.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparation of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patients evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165–75.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Liberman L. Breast cancer screening with MRI: what are the data for patients at high risk? New Engl J Med. 2004;351:497–500.PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347–60.PubMed
17.
Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, et al. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clini North Am. 2004;42:793–806.CrossRef
18.
Schopper D, Wolf C. How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1916–23.PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Chala LF, Shimizu C, Camargo P. Rastreamento mamográfico na população em geral. In: Frasson A, Millen EC, Novita G, et al., editors.Doenças da mama: guia prático baseado em evidências. São Paulo: Editora Atheneu; 2011.
21.
• Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:27–41. Review and recommendations about the breast screening from the American Cancer Society.PubMedCrossRef
22.
• Lee CH, Dershaw DD MD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:18–27. Review and recommendations about the breast screening from Society of Breast Imaging and the American College of Radiology.CrossRef
23.
US Preventive Services. Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727–37.
24.
Bn H, Fw D. Abdsaleh S, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish mammography screening in young women cohort. Cancer. 2011;117:714–22.CrossRef
25.
US Preventive Services. Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:344–6.
26.
Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53:141–69.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Michaelson JS, Halpern E, Kopans DB. Breast cancer: computer simulation method for estimating optimal intervals for screening. Radiology. 1999;21:551–60.
28.
Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol. 2009;50:3–14.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Hendrick RE, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer SenoScan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol. 2004;11:879–86.PubMedCrossRef
31.
•• Kalager M. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:491–9. Recent study about the overdiagnosis of brest cancer due to mammography screening: An overdiagnosis rate of 15-25% was estimated, which represents 6–10 overdiagnosed women at every 2,500 screened patients.PubMed
32.
•• Bock K, Borisch B, Cawson J, et al. Effect of population based screening on breast cancer mortality. Lancet. 2011;378:1765–76. Recent publication signed by some leading breast cancer researchers reinforced the importance of MG as public health policy.CrossRef
33.
Kriege R, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. New Engl J Med. 2004;351:425–37.CrossRef
34.
Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clinl Oncol. 2001;19:3524–31.
35.
Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292:1317–25.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. 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;365:1769–78.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8469–76.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;20:1450–7.CrossRef
39.
Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’Agnolo G, et al. High breast cancer risk Italian trial: Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study). interim results. Radiology. 2007;242:698–715.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007;244:381–8.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Hagen AI, Kvistad KA, Maehle L, et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast. 2007;16:367–74.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Lord SJ, 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;43:1905–17.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, et al. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:671–9.PubMed
44.
Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Hop WCJ, et al. BRCA1 mutation and young age predict fast breast cancer growth in the Dutch, United Kingdom, and Canadian magnetic resonance imaging screening trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:7357–62.PubMedCrossRef
45.
• Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010:1286–316. Review and recommendations about the MRI screening from EUROMA working group.
46.
National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care. Familial breast cancer: the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer in primary, secondary and tertiary care (partial update of CG14). 2006;1–75.
47.
Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA. 2006;295:2374–84.PubMedCrossRef
48.
•• Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89. Recommendations about the MRI screening from the America Cancer Society.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, et al. Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR. 2010;194:1160–6.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Wang Y, Ikeda DM, Narasimhan B, et al. Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression. Radiology. 2008;246:367–75.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Yang WT, Dryden M, Broglio K, et al. Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breast Cancer ResTreat. 2008;111:405–10.CrossRef
52.
Schrading S, Kuhl CK. Mammographic, US and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;246:58–70.PubMed
53.
•• Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E. MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet. 2011;378:1804–11. This study did a critical analysis of the main indications of breast MRI, with concerns about breast screening.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Taneja C, Edelsberg J, Weycker D, et al. Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening with contrast-enhanced MRI in high-risk women. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:171–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Role of Mammography versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening
Authors
Linei Urban
Cícero Urban
Publication date
01-09-2012
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Breast Cancer Reports / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1943-4588
Electronic ISSN: 1943-4596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-012-0085-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Current Breast Cancer Reports 3/2012 Go to the issue

Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Tamoxifen versus Raloxifene versus Exemestane for Chemoprevention

Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Options for Surgical Prophylaxis and Reconstruction

Invited Commentary

Analysis of Cyclin D1 in Breast Cancer: A Call to Arms

Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Comparison of Random Periareolar Fine Needle Aspirate versus Ductal Lavage for Risk Assessment and Prevention of Breast Cancer

Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Clinical Perspective: Influence of Modifiable Lifestyle Factors, Body Weight, Physical Activity, and Alcohol on Breast Cancer Outcome

Invited Commentary

Is HER2 Through?
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