Literature DB >> 29101979

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Cancer Screening.

Martha B Mainiero1, Linda Moy2, Paul Baron3, Aarati D Didwania4, Roberta M diFlorio5, Edward D Green6, Samantha L Heller7, Anna I Holbrook8, Su-Ju Lee9, Alana A Lewin7, Ana P Lourenco10, Kara J Nance11, Bethany L Niell12, Priscilla J Slanetz13, Ashley R Stuckey14, Nina S Vincoff15, Susan P Weinstein16, Monica M Yepes17, Mary S Newell18.   

Abstract

Breast cancer screening recommendations are based on risk factors. For average-risk women, screening mammography and/or digital breast tomosynthesis is recommended beginning at age 40. Ultrasound (US) may be useful as an adjunct to mammography for incremental cancer detection in women with dense breasts, but the balance between increased cancer detection and the increased risk of a false-positive examination should be considered in the decision. For intermediate-risk women, US or MRI may be indicated as an adjunct to mammography depending upon specific risk factors. For women at high risk due to prior mantle radiation between the ages of 10 to 30, mammography is recommended starting 8 years after radiation therapy but not before age 25. For women with a genetic predisposition, annual screening mammography is recommended beginning 10 years earlier than the affected relative at the time of diagnosis but not before age 30. Annual screening MRI is recommended in high-risk women as an adjunct to mammography. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.
Copyright © 2017 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AUC; Appropriate Use Criteria; Appropriateness Criteria; Breast Cancer; Breast MRI; Breast US; Mammography; Screening

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29101979     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.08.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  27 in total

Review 1.  Multidisciplinary approach to imaging for gender-affirming surgery: engaging surgeons, radiologists, and patients to ensure a positive imaging experience.

Authors:  Justin T Stowell; Vaz A Zavaletta; Evelyn F Carroll; Frances W Grimstad
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-04

2.  Let's Get Real about Molecular Breast Imaging and Radiation Risk.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2019-09-27

3.  Variation in Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations by Primary Care Providers Surveyed in Wisconsin.

Authors:  Emily Nachtigal; Noelle K LoConte; Sarah Kerch; Xiao Zhang; Amanda Parkes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Breast cancer screening programs: does one risk fit all?

Authors:  Federica Pediconi; Francesca Galati
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-04

5.  Preoperative MRI and Its Impact on Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Triple Negative Breast Cancer Treated with Primary Surgery: Did New Margin Guidelines or Cavity Shave Margins Practice Diminish the Role of Preoperative MRI?

Authors:  Laura Burkbauer; Macy Goldbach; Daniel I Hoffman; Andreas Giannakou; Rachel Dultz; Ari D Brooks; Dahlia M Sataloff; Luke Keele; Julia Tchou
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 6.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Nicole B Gabler; Cosette M Wheeler; Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip E Castle; Ethan A Halm; Mitchell D Schnall; Celette S Skinner; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Anil Vachani; Shivan J Mehta; Katharine A Rendle; Stacey A Fedewa; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation.

Authors:  Mary W Marsh; Thad S Benefield; Sheila Lee; Michael Pritchard; Katie Earnhardt; Robert Agans; Louise M Henderson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 9.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview.

Authors:  Ekta Dhamija; Malvika Gulati; S V S Deo; Ajay Gogia; Smriti Hari
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-05-15

10.  Invasive lobular carcinoma mammographic findings: correlation with age, breast composition, and tumour size.

Authors:  Corrado Tagliati; Federico Cerimele; Antonietta Di Martino; Fabrizio Capone; Marialuisa Di Matteo; Nevia Caputo; Gabriella Lucidi Pressanti; Ying Mingliang; Silvia Baldassarre; Andrea Giovagnoni; Gian Marco Giuseppetti
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2021-06-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.