INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of mammographic screening has been proven at evidence level 1A. Mammography offers the best ratio of benefits to side effects of any screening method tested to date. In this literature review, we ask whether early detection might be improved still further by combining mammography with other imaging modalities. METHODS: The authors performed a selective literature search for combined key words in the Medline and Cochrane Library databases from 1/2000 to 11/2007, screened all titles, and evaluated the full text of all original articles. We selected articles for further analysis according to systematic criteria (minimum numbers, avoidance of overlap) and also considered published guidelines. RESULTS: No screening studies of comparable size to those for mammography are available for ultrasound or MRI. Smaller studies have indicated that the use of these two modalities might lead to the detection of additional cancers in selected subgroups. For mass screening an increase in the detection rate of 10% to 15% might become possible. This increase would probably be associated with a tripling of the breast biopsy rate, compared to mammography alone. The number of indeterminate cases in which short-term follow-up (i.e., at 6 months) would be recommended would increase roughly tenfold with MRI, and to an unknown extent with ultrasound. The related quality-assurance issues remain to be addressed. DISCUSSION: Randomized controlled studies are needed for a realistic assessment of the achievable benefits and unavoidable side effects of combined screening. For women whose risk of breast cancer is not elevated, mammography remains the standard screening method.
INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of mammographic screening has been proven at evidence level 1A. Mammography offers the best ratio of benefits to side effects of any screening method tested to date. In this literature review, we ask whether early detection might be improved still further by combining mammography with other imaging modalities. METHODS: The authors performed a selective literature search for combined key words in the Medline and Cochrane Library databases from 1/2000 to 11/2007, screened all titles, and evaluated the full text of all original articles. We selected articles for further analysis according to systematic criteria (minimum numbers, avoidance of overlap) and also considered published guidelines. RESULTS: No screening studies of comparable size to those for mammography are available for ultrasound or MRI. Smaller studies have indicated that the use of these two modalities might lead to the detection of additional cancers in selected subgroups. For mass screening an increase in the detection rate of 10% to 15% might become possible. This increase would probably be associated with a tripling of the breast biopsy rate, compared to mammography alone. The number of indeterminate cases in which short-term follow-up (i.e., at 6 months) would be recommended would increase roughly tenfold with MRI, and to an unknown extent with ultrasound. The related quality-assurance issues remain to be addressed. DISCUSSION: Randomized controlled studies are needed for a realistic assessment of the achievable benefits and unavoidable side effects of combined screening. For women whose risk of breast cancer is not elevated, mammography remains the standard screening method.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer; early detection; magnetic resonance imaging; mammography screening; ultrasonography
Authors: Petra Viehweg; Thorsten Bernerth; Anke Heinig; Marion Kiechle; Jörg Buchmann; Heinz Koelbl; Michael Laniado; Sylvia Helen Heywang-Köbrunner Journal: Breast J Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: M Van Goethem; K Schelfout; E Kersschot; C Colpaert; J Weyler; I Verslegers; I Biltjes; A De Schepper; P M Parizel Journal: JBR-BTR Date: 2005 Sep-Oct
Authors: Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; Cathleen M Kim; Jennifer B Kaplan; Andrea F Abramson; Jennifer H Menell; Kimberly J Van Zee; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wendy S Rubinstein; Jean J Latimer; Jules H Sumkin; Michelle Huerbin; Stephen G Grant; Victor G Vogel Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2006-06-26 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: S Heywang-Koebrunner; K Bock; W Heindel; G Hecht; L Regitz-Jedermann; A Hacker; V Kaeaeb-Sanyal Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.915