| Literature DB >> 35380032 |
Rui Ding1,2, Yi Xiao1,2, Miao Mo3, Ying Zheng3, Yi-Zhou Jiang1,2, Zhi-Ming Shao1,2,4.
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in Chinese women, and its incidence is increasing. Regular screening is an effective method for early tumor detection and improving patient prognosis. In this review, we analyze the epidemiological changes and risk factors associated with breast cancer in China and describe the establishment of a screening strategy suitable for Chinese women. Chinese patients with breast cancer tend to be younger than Western patients and to have denser breasts. Therefore, the age of initial screening in Chinese women should be earlier, and the importance of screening with a combination of ultrasound and mammography is stressed. Moreover, Chinese patients with breast cancers have several ancestry-specific genetic features, and aiding in the determination of genetic screening strategies for identifying high-risk populations. On the basis of current studies, we summarize the development of risk-stratified breast cancer screening guidelines for Chinese women and describe the significant improvement in the prognosis of patients with breast cancer in China.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Chinese; genetic test; imaging screening; screening
Year: 2022 PMID: 35380032 PMCID: PMC9088185 DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2021.0676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Biol Med ISSN: 2095-3941 Impact factor: 5.347
Comparison of common screening techniques
| Technique | Current recommendations | Advantages | Disadvantages | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Recall rate (%) | PPV (%) | Cancer detection rate (per 1000) | Ref.* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mammography | Recommended for women who have reached the initial age for breast cancer screening | Convenient; economical; sensitive to microcalcification | Insensitive to high density breasts and deep lesions | 69.0–86.0 | 57.0–96.6 | 3.5–4.0 | 13.0–22.9 | 3.2–7.1 |
[ |
| DBT | Recommended, particularly for women with dense breasts, replacing DM | 3D imaging, reducing tissue overlay | Greater radiation dose, examination time and cost | 82.6–89.0 | 72.0–97.6 | 3.1–3.9 | 20.7–21.4 | 4.6–9.4 |
[ |
| CEM | Recommended for women at high risk | Vascular functional imaging | Use of contrast agents; greater radiation dose | 87.5–92.7 | 67.9–93.7 | – | 11.9–20.9 | 13.1–15.5 |
[ |
| Ultrasound | Recommended, particularly for women with dense breasts, and pregnant and lactating women | Noninvasive; real-time; no radiation; elastography; identification of cystic and solid masses | Dependent on technologist experience; insensitive to lesions without clear mass | 80.0–90.6 | 81.0–94.5 | 4.1–6.9 | 3.0–6.6 | 4.4 |
[ |
| ABUS | Recommended, particularly for women with dense breasts, and pregnant and lactating women | Less dependent on technologist skill; reproducible | Unable to assess the axillary lymph node status | 67.6–99.8 | 74.6–91.6 | 1.5–13.5 | 4.1–5.4 | 1.8–15.1 |
[ |
| MRI | Recommended for women at high risk | Most precise identification of soft tissue; reflects both the anatomical structure and lesions; displays small lesions, multifocal lesions, and lesions located deep in the tissue | Insensitive to calcification; expensive; long examination time; use of contrast agents | 95.2–97.5 | 83.8–92.0 | 9.5 | 8.0–17.4 | 11.8–16.5 |
[ |
DBT, digital breast tomosynthesis; DM, digital mammography; CEM, contrast-enhanced mammography; ABUS, automated breast ultrasonography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PPV, positive predictive value. *Most relevant studies with evidence grade IIb or above are included to illustrate the performance of most imaging techniques, which were essentially the results of randomized controlled experiments or systematic review and meta-analysis.
Performance of US and MAM screening in programs in China
| Study | Number of participants underwent screening | Number of breast cancer patients | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | MAM | US + MAM | US | MAM | US + MAM | US | MAM | US + MAM | |||
| Ya-jie et al.[ | 11,236 | 54 | 57.4 | 79.6 | 92.6 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Dong et al.[ | 31,918 | 99 | 61.6 | 84.8 | 94.9 | 98.8 | 98.1 | 97.2 | 13.6 | 12.2 | 9.5 |
| Shen et al.[ | 4,135 | 14 | 100 | 57.1 | 100 | 99.9 | 100 | 99.9 | 70 | 72.7 | 60.9 |
| Li et al.[ | 5,296 | 3,002 | 97.9 | 96.2 | 99.4 | 49.7 | 39.2 | 24.8 | 59.8 | 54.7 | 50.3 |
PPV, positive predictive value; US, ultrasound; MAM, mammography.
Comparison of frequent germline mutations between breast cancers in Chinese and white patients
| Gene | Mutation frequency (%) | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese | White | ||
|
| 1.6–2.7 | 1.4–3.7 |
[ |
|
| 2.7–3.7 | 1.6–3.1 |
[ |
|
| 0.7–1.0 | 0.9–1.0 |
[ |
|
| 0.3–0.5 | 0.2–0.3 |
[ |
|
| 0.4–0.6 | 0.7–1.0 |
[ |
|
| 0.2–0.3 | 1.6–2.1 |
[ |
|
| 0.4–0.5 | 0.1 |
[ |
|
| 0.2 | 0.2 |
[ |
|
| 0.1 | 0.1 |
[ |
|
| 0.2–0.3 | 0.2–0.8 |
[ |