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 1/2017

Open Access 01-02-2017 | Statement

Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women

Authors: Francesco Sardanelli, Eva M. Fallenberg, Paola Clauser, Rubina M. Trimboli, Julia Camps-Herrero, Thomas H. Helbich, Gabor Forrai, for the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

This article summarises the information to be offered to women about mammography. After a delineation of the aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the difference between screening mammography and diagnostic mammography is explained. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. Mammography technique and procedure are described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a small number of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening programme and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the mammography report and of classification systems such as R1-R5 and BI-RADS is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers, i.e., those cancers that are missed at screening mammography. Moreover, the breast cancer risk due to radiation exposure from mammography is compared to the reduction in mortality obtained with the test, and the concept of overdiagnosis is presented with a reliable estimation of its extent. Information about new mammographic technologies (tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography) is also given. Finally, frequently asked questions are answered.

Key Points

• Direct digital mammography should be preferred to film-screen or phosphor plates.
• Screening (in asymptomatic women) should be distinguished from diagnosis (in symptomatic women).
• A breast symptom has to be considered even after a negative mammogram.
• Digital breast tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases the recall rate.
• Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography can help in cancer detection and lesion characterisation.
Literature
1.
Sardanelli F, Helbich TH, European Society of Breast Imaging (2012) Mammography: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Insights Imaging 3:7–10CrossRefPubMed
2.
Sardanelli F, Aase H, Álvarez M et al. (2016) Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging 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, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. Eur Radiol Nov 2 [Epub ahead of print]
3.
Feig SA (2014) Screening mammography benefit controversies: sorting the evidence. Radiol Clin N Am 52:455–480CrossRefPubMed
4.
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 372:2353–2358CrossRefPubMed
5.
Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA (2015) Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ 351:h4901CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Kaplan HG, Malmgren JA, Atwood MK, Calip GS (2015) Effect of treatment and mammography detection on breast cancer survival over time: 1990–2007. Cancer 121:2553–2561CrossRefPubMed
7.
Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R et al (2016) Digital compared with screen-film mammography: measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario breast screening program. Radiology 278:365–373CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316CrossRefPubMed
10.
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 25:3669–3678CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Drossaert CHC, Boer H, Seydel ER (2002) Monitoring women’s experiences during three rounds of breast cancer screening: results from a longitudinal study. J Med Screen 9:168–175CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Ascunce N et al (2010) A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur J Cancer Prev 19:87–93CrossRefPubMed
14.
Carbonaro LA, Azzarone A, Paskeh BB et al (2014) Interval breast cancers: absolute and proportional incidence and blinded review in a community mammographic screening program. Eur J Radiol 83:e84–e91CrossRefPubMed
15.
Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 258:98–105CrossRefPubMed
16.
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 55:1174–1179CrossRefPubMed
17.
Biesheuvel C, Barratt A, Howard K et al (2007) Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 8:1129–1138CrossRefPubMed
18.
Paci E, Broeders M, Hofvind S, Puliti D, Duffy SW, EUROSCREEN Working Group (2014) European breast cancer service screening outcomes: a first balance sheet of the benefits and harms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23:1159–1163CrossRefPubMed
19.
Semturs F, Sturm E, Gruber R, Helbich TH (2010) Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems. Radiologe 50:982–990CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308CrossRefPubMed
22.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663CrossRefPubMed
23.
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 24:93–99CrossRefPubMed
24.
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 267:47–56
25.
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 23:2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
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 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed
27.
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 26:184–190CrossRefPubMed
28.
Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices 12:377–379CrossRefPubMed
29.
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 2:737–743CrossRefPubMed
30.
Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat 146:371–381CrossRefPubMed
31.
Lobbes MBI, 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
32.
Knogler T, Homolka P, Hörnig M et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced dual energy mammography with a novel anode/filter combination and artifact reduction: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 26:1575–1581CrossRefPubMed
33.
Jeukens CRLPN, Lalji UC, Meijer E et al (2014) Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol 49:659–665
34.
Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 28:13–19CrossRefPubMed
35.
Tennant SL, James JJ, Cornford EJ et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography improves diagnostic accuracy in the symptomatic setting. Clin Radiol 71:1148–1155
36.
Tardivel AM, Balleyguier C, Dunant A et al (2016) Added value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in postscreening assessment. Breast J 22:520–528CrossRefPubMed
37.
Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS et al (2013) Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 266:743–751CrossRefPubMed
38.
Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol 24:256–264CrossRefPubMed
39.
Stacul F, van der Molen AJ, Reimer P, Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology et al (2011) Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 21:2527–2541CrossRefPubMed
40.
Morcos SK, Bellin MF, Thomsen HS, Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology et al (2008) Reducing the risk of iodine-based and MRI contrast media administration: recommendation for a questionnaire at the time of booking. Eur J Radiol 66:225–229CrossRefPubMed
41.
Simon MS, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Thomson CA et al (2014) Mammography interval and breast cancer mortality in women over the age of 75. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148:187–195CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
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 314:1599–1614
Metadata
Title
Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women
Authors
Francesco Sardanelli
Eva M. Fallenberg
Paola Clauser
Rubina M. Trimboli
Julia Camps-Herrero
Thomas H. Helbich
Gabor Forrai
for the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0531-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Insights into Imaging 1/2017 Go to the issue

Report

Summary of the proceedings of the international forum 2016: “Imaging referral guidelines and clinical decision support - how can radiologists implement imaging referral guidelines in clinical routine?”

Review

Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?

Pictorial Review

Contrast opacification on thoracic CT angiography: challenges and solutions

Pictorial Review

Imaging biomarkers of dementia: recommended visual rating scales with teaching cases

Pictorial Review

Diverticulitis: a comprehensive review with usual and unusual complications

Pictorial Review

Os peroneum imaging: normal appearance and pathological findings