Literature DB >> 32903054

Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Wendie A Berg1, Elizabeth A Rafferty2, Sarah M Friedewald3, Carrie B Hruska4, Habib Rahbar5.   

Abstract

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality; however, when used to examine women with dense breasts, its performance and resulting benefits are reduced. Increased breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), molecular breast imaging (MBI), MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) each have shown improved cancer detection in dense breasts when compared with 2D digital mammography (DM). DBT is the preferred mammographic technique for producing a simultaneous reduction in recalls (i.e., additional imaging). US further increases cancer detection after DM or DBT and reduces interval cancers (cancers detected in the interval between recommended screening examinations), but it also produces substantial additional false-positive findings. MBI improves cancer detection with an effective radiation dose that is approximately fourfold that of DM or DBT but is still within accepted limits. MRI provides the greatest increase in cancer detection and reduces interval cancers and late-stage disease; abbreviated techniques will reduce cost and improve availability. CEM appears to offer performance similar to that of MRI, but further validation is needed. Dense breast notification will soon be a national standard; therefore, understanding the performance of mammography and supplemental modalities is necessary to optimize screening for women with dense breasts.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; breast density; contrast-enhanced mammography; molecular breast imaging; tomosynthesis; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32903054      PMCID: PMC8101043          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24436

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  89 in total

1.  Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics.

Authors:  Csaba Gajdos; Paul Ian Tartter; Ira J Bleiweiss; George Hermann; John de Csepel; Alison Estabrook; Alfred W Rademaker
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Kevin Strobel; Hans H Schild; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Heribert B Bieling
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Differences in natural history between breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and effects of MRI screening-MRISC, MARIBS, and Canadian studies combined.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Ellen Warner; Fiona J Gilbert; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Gareth Evans; Petrina A Causer; Rosalind A Eeles; Reinie Kaas; Gerrit Draisma; Elizabeth A Ramsay; Ruth M L Warren; Kimberly A Hill; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Martin N J M Wasser; Elisabeth Bergers; Jan C Oosterwijk; Maartje J Hooning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn; Don B Plewes; Martin O Leach; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Race/Ethnicity and Age Distribution of Breast Cancer Diagnosis in the United States.

Authors:  Sahael M Stapleton; Tawakalitu O Oseni; Yanik J Bababekov; Ya-Ching Hung; David C Chang
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 14.766

5.  Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Janice S Sung; Lizza Lebron; Delia Keating; Donna D'Alessio; Christopher E Comstock; Carol H Lee; Malcolm C Pike; Miranda Ayhan; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up.

Authors:  Vittorio Corsetti; Nehmat Houssami; Marco Ghirardi; Aurora Ferrari; Michela Speziani; Sergio Bellarosa; Giuseppe Remida; Cristina Gasparotti; Enzo Galligioni; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Reasons for (non)participation in supplemental population-based MRI breast screening for women with extremely dense breasts.

Authors:  S V de Lange; M F Bakker; E M Monninkhof; P H M Peeters; P K de Koekkoek-Doll; R M Mann; M J C M Rutten; R H C Bisschops; J Veltman; K M Duvivier; M B I Lobbes; H J de Koning; N Karssemeijer; R M Pijnappel; W B Veldhuis; C H van Gils
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 8.  The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned?

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy; Rhian Gabe; Laszlo Tabar; Amy M F Yen; Tony H H Chen
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  Breast Cancers Detected at Screening MR Imaging and Mammography in Patients at High Risk: Method of Detection Reflects Tumor Histopathologic Results.

Authors:  Janice S Sung; Sarah Stamler; Jennifer Brooks; Jennifer Kaplan; Tammy Huang; D David Dershaw; Carol H Lee; Elizabeth A Morris; Christopher E Comstock
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Women With Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk and Dense Breasts.

Authors:  Vera Sorin; Yael Yagil; Ady Yosepovich; Anat Shalmon; Michael Gotlieb; Osnat Halshtok Neiman; Miri Sklair-Levy
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.109

2.  Advances and Future Directions in Molecular Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Matthew F Covington; Ephraim E Parent; Elizabeth H Dibble; Gaiane M Rauch; Amy M Fowler
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 11.082

Review 3.  Glandular Tissue Component on Breast Ultrasound in Dense Breasts: A New Imaging Biomarker for Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Su Hyun Lee; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2022-06       Impact factor: 7.109

4.  Detection and recognition of ultrasound breast nodules based on semi-supervised deep learning: a powerful alternative strategy.

Authors:  Yanhua Gao; Bo Liu; Yuan Zhu; Lin Chen; Miao Tan; Xiaozhou Xiao; Gang Yu; Youmin Guo
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-06
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.