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 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

Open Access 24-04-2024 | Mammography | Invited Review

ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI

Authors: Magda Marcon, Michael H. Fuchsjäger, Paola Clauser, Ritse M. Mann

Published in: European Radiology

Login to get access

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women accounting for about 30% of all new cancer cases and the incidence is constantly increasing. Implementation of mammographic screening has contributed to a reduction in breast cancer mortality of at least 20% over the last 30 years. Screening programs usually include all women irrespective of their risk of developing breast cancer and with age being the only determining factor. This approach has some recognized limitations, including underdiagnosis, false positive cases, and overdiagnosis. Indeed, breast cancer remains a major cause of cancer-related deaths in women undergoing cancer screening. Supplemental imaging modalities, including digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, breast MRI, and, more recently, contrast-enhanced mammography, are available and have already shown potential to further increase the diagnostic performances. Use of breast MRI is recommended in high-risk women and women with extremely dense breasts. Artificial intelligence has also shown promising results to support risk categorization and interval cancer reduction. The implementation of a risk-stratified approach instead of a “one-size-fits-all” approach may help to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio as well as the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.

Key Points

  • Regular mammography should still be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening.
  • High-risk women and women with extremely dense breast tissue should use MRI for supplemental screening or US if MRI is not available.
  • Women need to participate actively in the decision to undergo personalized screening.

Key recommendations

  • Mammography is an effective imaging tool to diagnose breast cancer in an early stage and to reduce breast cancer mortality (evidence level I). Until more evidence is available to move to a personalized approach, regular mammography should be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening.
  • High-risk women should start screening earlier; first with yearly breast MRI which can be supplemented by yearly or biennial mammography starting at 35–40 years old (evidence level I). Breast MRI screening should be also offered to women with extremely dense breasts (evidence level I). If MRI is not available, ultrasound can be performed as an alternative, although the added value of supplemental ultrasound regarding cancer detection remains limited.
  • Individual screening recommendations should be made through a shared decision-making process between women and physicians.
Literature
1.
IARC Cancer Today. International Agency for Research on Cancer Centers for disease Control and prevention Accessed September 7, 2023
2.
Lima SM, Kehm RD, Terry MB (2021) Global breast cancer incidence and mortality trends by region, age-groups, and fertility patterns. EClinicalMedicine 38:100985PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Dyba T, Randi G, Bray F et al (2021) The European cancer burden in 2020: Incidence and mortality estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers. Eur J Cancer 157:308–347PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Lukasiewicz S, Czeczelewski M, Forma A, Baj J, Sitarz R, Stanislawek A (2021) Breast cancer-epidemiology, risk factors, classification, prognostic markers, and current treatment strategies-an updated review. Cancers (Basel) 13:4287
5.
McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1159–1169PubMedCrossRef
6.
Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP et al (1989) Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886PubMedCrossRef
7.
Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J (2004) A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 23:1111–1130PubMedCrossRef
8.
Lee CS, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES, Nagy P, Sickles EA (2016) The National Mammography Database: preliminary data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:883–890PubMedCrossRef
9.
Lee A, Mavaddat N, Wilcox AN et al (2019) BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med 21:1708–1718PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Yala A, Lehman C, Schuster T, Portnoi T, Barzilay R (2019) A deep learning mammography-based model for improved breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology 292:60–66PubMedCrossRef
11.
Allweis TM, Hermann N, Berenstein-Molho R, Guindy M (2021) Personalized screening for breast cancer: rationale, present practices, and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol 28:4306–4317PubMedCrossRef
12.
Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M et al (1998) Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 62:676–689PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Lee CS, Destounis SV (2023) Breast cancer screening for women at higher-than-average risk: updated recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol 20:902–914PubMedCrossRef
14.
Roux A, Cholerton R, Sicsic J et al (2022) Study protocol comparing the ethical, psychological and socio-economic impact of personalised breast cancer screening to that of standard screening in the “My Personal Breast Screening” (MyPeBS) randomised clinical trial. BMC Cancer 22:507PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Esserman L, Eklund M, Veer LV et al (2021) The WISDOM study: a new approach to screening can and should be tested. Breast Cancer Res Treat 189:593–598PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
18.
Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M (2013) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 108:2205–2240PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH (2004) The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 42:793–806PubMedCrossRef
20.
Trimboli RM, Giorgi Rossi P, Battisti NML et al (2020) Do we still need breast cancer screening in the era of targeted therapies and precision medicine? Insights Imaging 11:105PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
22.
Freer PE (2015) Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics 35:302–315PubMedCrossRef
23.
Johnson K, Olinder J, Rosso A, Andersson I, Lang K, Zackrisson S (2023) False-positive recalls in the prospective Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Eur Radiol 33:8089–8099PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N (2018) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:942–949PubMedCrossRef
25.
Kerlikowske K, Su YR, Sprague BL et al (2022) Association of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with risk of interval invasive and advanced breast cancer. JAMA 327:2220–2230PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2022) A randomized trial comparing breast cancer incidence and interval cancers after tomosynthesis plus mammography versus mammography alone. Radiology 303:256–266PubMedCrossRef
27.
Johnson K, Lang K, Ikeda DM, Akesson A, Andersson I, Zackrisson S (2021) Interval breast cancer rates and tumor characteristics in the prospective population-based malmo breast tomosynthesis screening trial. Radiology 299:559–567PubMedCrossRef
28.
Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F et al (2018) Interval breast cancers in the ‘screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography’ (STORM) population-based trial. Breast 38:150–153PubMedCrossRef
29.
Chikarmane SA, Offit LR, Giess CS (2023) Synthetic mammography: benefits, drawbacks, and pitfalls. Radiographics 43:e230018PubMedCrossRef
30.
van Zelst JCM, Mann RM (2018) Automated three-dimensional breast US for screening: technique, artifacts, and lesion characterization. Radiographics 38:663–683PubMedCrossRef
31.
Evans A, Trimboli RM, Athanasiou A et al (2018) Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging. Insights Imaging 9:449–461PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316PubMedCrossRef
34.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
Mann RM, Athanasiou A, Baltzer PAT et al (2022) Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Eur Radiol 32:4036–4045PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Veenhuizen SGA, de Lange SV, Bakker MF et al (2021) Supplemental breast MRI for women with extremely dense breasts: results of the second screening round of the DENSE trial. Radiology 299:278–286PubMedCrossRef
38.
Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM et al (2020) Comparison of abbreviated breast MRI vs digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection among women with dense breasts undergoing screening. JAMA 323:746–756PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM et al (2019) Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med 381:2091–2102PubMedCrossRef
40.
D’Orsi, CJ, Sickles, EA, Mendelson, EB et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology
41.
Sorin V, Yagil Y, Yosepovich A et al (2018) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk and dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:W267–W274PubMedCrossRef
42.
Jochelson MS, Pinker K, Dershaw DD et al (2017) Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: A pilot study. Eur J Radiol 97:37–43PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL et al (2017) National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the breast cancer surveillance consortium. Radiology 283:49–58PubMedCrossRef
45.
Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL (2011) Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155:481–492PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis.: fourth edition -: summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622PubMedCrossRef
47.
Hofvind S, Bennett RL, Brisson J et al (2016) Audit feedback on reading performance of screening mammograms: an international comparison. J Med Screen 23:150–159PubMedCrossRef
48.
Dabbous FM, Dolecek TA, Berbaum ML et al (2017) Impact of a false-positive screening mammogram on subsequent screening behavior and stage at breast cancer diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 26:397–403PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L et al (2015) Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer 51:2296–2303PubMedCrossRef
50.
Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L et al (2015) Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - the LORD study. Eur J Cancer 51:1497–1510PubMedCrossRef
51.
52.
Muhlberger N, Sroczynski G, Gogollari A et al (2021) Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies. Eur J Health Econ 22:1311–1344PubMedCrossRef
53.
54.
Newman LA (2022) Breast cancer screening in low and middle-income countries. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 83:15–23PubMedCrossRef
55.
Shah BA, Mirchandani A, Abrol S (2022) Impact of same day screening mammogram results on women’s satisfaction and overall breast cancer screening experience: a quality improvement survey analysis. BMC Womens Health 22:338
56.
Mathioudakis AG, Janner J, Moberg M, Alonso-Coello P, Vestbo J (2019) A systematic evaluation of the diagnostic criteria for COPD and exacerbations used in randomised controlled trials on the management of COPD exacerbations. ERJ Open Res 5:00136–2019PubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Rainey L, van der Waal D, Broeders MJM (2020) Dutch women’s intended participation in a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme: a survey study identifying preferences, facilitators and barriers. BMC Cancer 20:965PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI
Authors
Magda Marcon
Michael H. Fuchsjäger
Paola Clauser
Ritse M. Mann
Publication date
24-04-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10740-5