Literature DB >> 29910654

Screening for breast cancer in 2018-what should we be doing today?

J M Seely1, T Alhassan1.   

Abstract

Although screening mammography has delivered many benefits since its introduction in Canada in 1988, questions about perceived harms warrant an up-to-date review. To help oncologists and physicians provide optimal patient recommendations, the literature was reviewed to find the latest guidelines for screening mammography, including benefits and perceived harms of overdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives, and technologic advances. For women 40-74 years of age who actually participate in screening every 1-2 years, breast cancer mortality is reduced by 40%. With appropriate corrections, overdiagnosis accounts for 10% or fewer breast cancers. False positives occur in about 10% of screened women, 80% of which are resolved with additional imaging, and 10%, with breast biopsy. An important limitation of screening is the false negatives (15%-20%). The technologic advances of digital breast tomosynthesis, breast ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging counter the false negatives of screening mammography, particularly in women with dense breast tissue.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; digital breast tomosynthesis; overdiagnosis; screening mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29910654      PMCID: PMC6001765          DOI: 10.3747/co.25.3770

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  72 in total

1.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  M J Michell; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; D R Evans; C Peacock; C P Lawinski; A Douiri; R Wilson; P Whelehan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 2.350

3.  Cost of breast cancer treatment. A 4-year longitudinal study.

Authors:  A P Legorreta; R J Brooks; A N Leibowitz; L J Solin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-10-28

Review 4.  The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies.

Authors:  Mireille Broeders; Sue Moss; Lennarth Nyström; Sisse Njor; Håkan Jonsson; Ellen Paap; Nathalie Massat; Stephen Duffy; Elsebeth Lynge; Eugenio Paci
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 5.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Studies are compromised and their results are unreliable. They should not factor into decisions about breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-05-20       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  The economic burden of metastatic breast cancer: a U.S. managed care perspective.

Authors:  Alberto J Montero; Sara Eapen; Brian Gorin; Paulette Adler
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-06-09       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Practice Bulletin No. 179 Summary: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Effectiveness of screening with annual magnetic resonance imaging and mammography: results of the initial screen from the ontario high risk breast screening program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Maegan V Prummel; Derek Muradali; Vicky Majpruz; Meaghan Horgan; June C Carroll; Andrea Eisen; Wendy S Meschino; Rene S Shumak; Ellen Warner; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.

Authors:  Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  43 in total

1.  Classification of breast microcalcifications using dual-energy mammography.

Authors:  Bahaa Ghammraoui; Andrey Makeev; Ahmed Zidan; Alaadin Alayoubi; Stephen J Glick
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2019-03-12

2.  Contrasting DCIS and invasive breast cancer by subtype suggests basal-like DCIS as distinct lesions.

Authors:  Helga Bergholtz; Tonje G Lien; David M Swanson; Arnoldo Frigessi; Maria Grazia Daidone; Jörg Tost; Fredrik Wärnberg; Therese Sørlie
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-06-17

Review 3.  Visualization of Microvascular Angiogenesis Using Dual-Frequency Contrast-Enhanced Acoustic Angiography: A Review.

Authors:  Isabel G Newsome; Paul A Dayton
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 2.998

4.  Bahcesehir long-term population-based screening compared to National Breast Cancer Registry Data: effectiveness of screening in an emerging country.

Authors:  Sibel Ozkan Gurdal; Ayse Nilufer Ozaydın; Erkin Aribal; Beyza Ozcinar; Neslihan Cabioglu; Cennet Sahin; Vahit Ozmen
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.630

5.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of general anesthesia combined with a thoracic nerve block in modified breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Juan Liao; Meiting Li; Jiaqi Gan; Jie Xiao; Guilin Xiang; Xizhi Ding; Rong Jiang; Peng Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-11

6.  External Evaluation of 3 Commercial Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Independent Assessment of Screening Mammograms.

Authors:  Mattie Salim; Erik Wåhlin; Karin Dembrower; Edward Azavedo; Theodoros Foukakis; Yue Liu; Kevin Smith; Martin Eklund; Fredrik Strand
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 31.777

7.  Racial disparities in routine health checkup and adherence to cancer screening guidelines among women in the United States of America.

Authors:  Amarachukwu F Orji; Takashi Yamashita
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 2.506

8.  Toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening: Considerations for Changes in Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Parichoy Pal Choudhury; Montserrat García-Closas
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 31.777

9.  Autoantibodies in Early Detection of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Femina Rauf; Karen S Anderson; Joshua LaBaer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Multi-Omics Marker Analysis Enables Early Prediction of Breast Tumor Progression.

Authors:  Haifeng Xu; Tonje Lien; Helga Bergholtz; Thomas Fleischer; Lounes Djerroudi; Anne Vincent-Salomon; Therese Sørlie; Tero Aittokallio
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.