Diana L Lam1, Nehmat Houssami2, Janie M Lee1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave East, G2-600, Seattle, WA 98109-1023. 2. 2 Screening and Test Evaluation Program, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Current clinical guidelines are consistent in supporting annual mammography for women after treatment of primary breast cancer. Surveillance imaging beyond standard digital mammography, including digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), breast ultrasound, and MRI, may improve outcomes. This article reviews the evidence on the performance and effectiveness of breast imaging modalities available for surveillance after treatment of sporadic unilateral primary breast cancer and identifies additional factors to be considered when selecting an imaging surveillance regimen. CONCLUSION: Evidence review supports the use of mammography for surveillance after primary breast cancer treatment. Variability exists in guideline recommendations for surveillance initiation, interval, and cessation. DBT offers the most promise as a potential modality to replace standard digital mammography as a front-line surveillance test; a single published study to date has shown a significant decrease in recall rates compared with standard digital mammography alone. Most guidelines do not support the use of whole-breast ultrasound in breast cancer surveillance, and further studies are needed to define the characteristics of women who may benefit from MRI surveillance. The emerging evidence about surveillance imaging outcomes suggests that additional factors, including patient and imaging characteristics, tumor biology and gene expression profile, and choice of treatment, warrant consideration in selecting personalized posttreatment imaging surveillance regimens.
OBJECTIVE: Current clinical guidelines are consistent in supporting annual mammography for women after treatment of primary breast cancer. Surveillance imaging beyond standard digital mammography, including digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), breast ultrasound, and MRI, may improve outcomes. This article reviews the evidence on the performance and effectiveness of breast imaging modalities available for surveillance after treatment of sporadic unilateral primary breast cancer and identifies additional factors to be considered when selecting an imaging surveillance regimen. CONCLUSION: Evidence review supports the use of mammography for surveillance after primary breast cancer treatment. Variability exists in guideline recommendations for surveillance initiation, interval, and cessation. DBT offers the most promise as a potential modality to replace standard digital mammography as a front-line surveillance test; a single published study to date has shown a significant decrease in recall rates compared with standard digital mammography alone. Most guidelines do not support the use of whole-breast ultrasound in breast cancer surveillance, and further studies are needed to define the characteristics of women who may benefit from MRI surveillance. The emerging evidence about surveillance imaging outcomes suggests that additional factors, including patient and imaging characteristics, tumor biology and gene expression profile, and choice of treatment, warrant consideration in selecting personalized posttreatment imaging surveillance regimens.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast MRI; breast ultrasound; digital breast tomosynthesis; imaging surveillance after primary breast cancer treatment; mammography
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Chana Weinstock; Cristina Campassi; Olga Goloubeva; Kathleen Wooten; Susan Kesmodel; Emily Bellevance; Steven Feigenberg; Olga Ioffe; Katherine H R Tkaczuk Journal: Springerplus Date: 2015-08-28
Authors: Marta de Souza Albernaz; Sergio Hiroshi Toma; Jeff Clanton; Koiti Araki; Ralph Santos-Oliveira Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: David S Weinberg; Perry J Pickhardt; David H Bruining; Kristin Edwards; Joel G Fletcher; Marc J Gollub; Eileen M Keenan; Sonia S Kupfer; Tianyu Li; Sam J Lubner; Arnold J Markowitz; Eric A Ross Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Janie M Lee; Linn Abraham; Diana L Lam; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Nehmat Houssami; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Janie M Lee; Laura E Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Erin Bowles; Jennifer M Specht; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Kathryn P Lowry; Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Nehmat Houssami; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Susan D Brandzel; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Louise M Henderson; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Sachiko M Oshima; Sarah D Tait; Christel Rushing; Whitney Lane; Terry Hyslop; Anaeze C Offodile; Stephanie B Wheeler; S Yousuf Zafar; Rachel Greenup; Laura J Fish Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-02-10