Advertisement

Breast cancer screening controversies: who, when, why, and how?

  • Author Footnotes
    1 This author worked as a research consultant for Siemens in November–December 2014 during a reader study for breast tomosynthesis for FDA approval. This relationship has no bearing on the content of this manuscript.
    Alison Chetlen
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State Hershey Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, EC 008, 30 Hope Drive, Suite 1800, Hershey, PA, 17033–0859. Tel.: +1-717-531-1495; fax: +1-717-531-4335.
    Footnotes
    1 This author worked as a research consultant for Siemens in November–December 2014 during a reader study for breast tomosynthesis for FDA approval. This relationship has no bearing on the content of this manuscript.
    Affiliations
    Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State Hershey Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, EC 008, 30 Hope Drive, Suite 1800, Hershey, PA, 17033-0859
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    2 Tel.: +1-717-531-6521.
    ,
    Author Footnotes
    3 This author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
    Julie Mack
    Footnotes
    2 Tel.: +1-717-531-6521.
    3 This author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
    Affiliations
    Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State Hershey Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, EC 008, 30 Hope Drive, Suite 1800, Hershey, PA, 17033-0859
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    3 This author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
    ,
    Author Footnotes
    4 Tel.: +1-717-531-0000.
    Tiffany Chan
    Footnotes
    3 This author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
    4 Tel.: +1-717-531-0000.
    Affiliations
    Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State Hershey Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, EC 008, 30 Hope Drive, Suite 1800, Hershey, PA, 17033-0859
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 This author worked as a research consultant for Siemens in November–December 2014 during a reader study for breast tomosynthesis for FDA approval. This relationship has no bearing on the content of this manuscript.
    2 Tel.: +1-717-531-6521.
    3 This author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
    4 Tel.: +1-717-531-0000.

      Abstract

      Mammographic screening is effective in reducing mortality from breast cancer. The issue is not whether mammography is effective, but whether the false positive rate and false negative rates can be reduced. This review will discuss controversies including the reduction in breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, the ideal screening candidate, and the optimal imaging modality for breast cancer screening. The article will compare and contrast screening mammography, tomosynthesis, whole-breast screening ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and molecular breast imaging. Though supplemental imaging modalities are being utilized to improve breast cancer diagnosis, mammography still remains the gold standard for breast cancer screening.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Breast cancer estimated incidence mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012.
        (Available from:)
        • Tabár L
        • Vitak B
        • Chen TH-H
        • Yen AM-F
        • Cohen A
        • Tot T
        • et al.
        Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades.
        Radiology. 2011; 260: 658-663
        • Screening IUPoBC
        The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.
        Lancet. 2012; 380: 1778-1786
        • Gøtzsche PC
        • Jørgensen KJ
        Screening for breast cancer with mammography.
        The Cochrane Library, 2013
        • Tabar L
        • Gad A
        • Holmberg L
        • Ljungquist U
        • Group KCP
        • Fagerberg C
        • et al.
        Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.
        Lancet. 1985; 325: 829-832
        • Shapiro S
        • Venet W
        • Strax P
        • Venet L
        • Roeser R
        Ten-to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982; 69: 349-355
        • Bleyer A
        • Welch HG
        Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 1998-2005
        • Komenaka IK
        • Nodora JN
        • Hsu C-H
        • Martinez ME
        • Gandhi SG
        • Bouton ME
        • et al.
        Association of health literacy with adherence to screening mammography guidelines. Presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 2011
        • Rahman SM
        • Dignan MB
        • Shelton BJ
        Factors influencing adherence to guidelines for screening mammography among women aged 40 years and older.
        Ethn Dis. 2003; 13: 477-484
        • Rosenberg RD
        • Hunt WC
        • Williamson MR
        • Gilliland FD
        • Wiest PW
        • Kelsey CA
        • et al.
        Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
        Radiology. 1998; 209: 511-518
        • Pisano ED
        • Gatsonis C
        • Hendrick E
        • Yaffe M
        • Baum JK
        • Acharyya S
        • et al.
        Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.
        Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2006; 61: 1773-1783
        • Force UPST
        Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 716-726
        • Kopans DB
        • Moore RH
        • McCarthy KA
        • Hall DA
        • Hulka C
        • Whitman GJ
        • et al.
        Biasing the interpretation of mammography screening data by age grouping: nothing changes abruptly at age 50.
        Breast J. 1998; 4: 139-145
        • Kalager M
        • Zelen M
        • Langmark F
        • Adami H-O
        Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 1203-1210
        • Kopans DB
        Point: The New England Journal of Medicine article suggesting overdiagnosis from mammography screening is scientifically incorrect and should be withdrawn.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 317-319
        • Duffy S
        • Tabár L
        • Smith RA
        The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gøtzsche.
        J Surg Oncol. 2002; 81: 159-162
        • Miller AB
        • Wall C
        • Baines CJ
        • Sun P
        • To T
        • Narod SA
        Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial.
        BMJ. 2014; 348https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g366
        • Miller AB
        • Baines CJ
        • To T
        • Wall C
        Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years.
        CMAJ. 1992; 147: 1459-1476
        • Miller AB
        • Baines CJ
        • To T
        • Wall C
        Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years.
        CMAJ. 1992; 147: 1477-1488
        • Coldman A
        • Phillips N
        • Wilson C
        • Decker K
        • Chiarelli AM
        • Brisson J
        • et al.
        Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106: dju261https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju261
        • Nelson HD
        • Tyne K
        • Naik A
        • Bougatsos C
        • Chan BK
        • Humphrey L
        Screening for breast cancer: an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 727-737
        • Paci E
        Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet.
        J Med Screen. 2012; 19: 5-13
        • Duffy SW
        • Chen TH-H
        • Smith RA
        • Yen AM-F
        • Tabar L
        Real and artificial controversies in breast cancer screening.
        Breast Cancer Manag. 2013; 2: 519-528
        • Puliti D
        • Duffy SW
        • Miccinesi G
        • De Koning H
        • Lynge E
        • Zappa M
        • et al.
        Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review.
        J Med Screen. 2012; 19: 42-56
        • Jørgensen KJ
        • Gøtzsche PC
        Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends.
        BMJ. 2009; 339: b2587
        • Kalager M
        • Adami H-O
        • Bretthauer M
        • Tamimi RM
        Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program.
        Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156: 491-499
        • Etzioni R
        • Xia J
        • Hubbard R
        • Weiss NS
        • Gulati R
        A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106: dju315
        • Duffy SW
        • Parmar D
        Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: the importance of length of observation period and lead time.
        Breast Cancer Res. 2013; 15: R41
        • Yen M-F
        • Tabar L
        • Vitak B
        • Smith R
        • Chen H-H
        • Duffy S
        Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening.
        Eur J Cancer. 2003; 39: 1746-1754
        • Schwartz LM
        • Woloshin S
        • Sox HC
        • Fischhoff B
        • Welch HG
        US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.
        BMJ. 2000; 320: 1635-1640
        • Smith RA
        • Duffy SW
        • Gabe R
        • Tabar L
        • Yen AM
        • Chen TH
        The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned?.
        Radiol Clin N Am. 2004; 42: 793-806
        • Hellquist BN
        • Duffy SW
        • Abdsaleh S
        • Björneld L
        • Bordás P
        • Tabar L
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of population‐based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years.
        Cancer. 2011; 117: 714-722
        • Berry DA
        • Cronin KA
        • Plevritis SK
        • Fryback DG
        • Clarke L
        • Zelen M
        • et al.
        Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1784-1792
        • Pashayan N
        • Duffy SW
        • Chowdhury S
        • Dent T
        • Burton H
        • Neal DE
        • et al.
        Polygenic susceptibility to prostate and breast cancer: implications for personalised screening.
        Br J Cancer. 2011; 104: 1656-1663
        • Meeting F
        Breast‐cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40–49 years.
        Int J Cancer. 1996; 68: 693-699
        • Kerlikowske K
        Screening mammography in women less than age 50 years.
        Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 24: 38-43
        • Kerlikowske K
        • Grady D
        • Barclay J
        • Sickles EA
        • Eaton A
        • Ernster V
        Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.
        JAMA. 1993; 270: 2444-2450
        • Duffy S
        • Tabar L
        • Olsen A
        • Vitak B
        • Allgood P
        • Chen T
        • et al.
        Cancer mortality in the 50–69 year age group before and after screening.
        J Med Screen. 2010; 17: 159-160
        • Jensena A
        • Ewertz M
        • Cold S
        • Storm H
        • Overgaard J
        Time trends and regional differences in registration, stage distribution, surgical management and survival of breast cancer in Denmark.
        Eur J Cancer. 2003; 39: 1783-1793
        • Chen TH
        • Jonsson SH
        • Lenner P
        Effect of mammographic service screening on stage at presentation of breast cancers in Sweden.
        Cancer. 2007; 109: 2205-2212
        • Altekruse S
        • Kosary C
        • Krapcho M
        • Neyman N
        • Aminou R
        • Waldron W
        • et al.
        SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2007.
        National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD2010: 7
      2. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
        (Available from:)
        • Jemal A
        • Siegel R
        • Ward E
        • Murray T
        • Xu J
        • Smigal C
        • et al.
        Cancer statistics, 2006.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2006; 56: 106-130
        • Friedewald SM
        • Rafferty EA
        • Rose SL
        • Durand MA
        • Plecha DM
        • Greenberg JS
        • et al.
        Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.
        JAMA. 2014; 311: 2499-2507
        • Skaane P
        • Bandos AI
        • Gullien R
        • Eben EB
        • Ekseth U
        • Haakenaasen U
        • et al.
        Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.
        Radiology. 2013; 267: 47-56
        • Ciatto S
        • Houssami N
        • Bernardi D
        • Caumo F
        • Pellegrini M
        • Brunelli S
        • et al.
        Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14: 583-589
        • Rose SL
        • Tidwell AL
        • Bujnoch LJ
        • Kushwaha AC
        • Nordmann AS
        • Sexton R
        Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200: 1401-1408
        • Kim SA
        • Chang JM
        • Cho N
        • Yi A
        • Moon WK
        Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography.
        Korean J Radiol. 2015; 16: 229-238
        • Benson S
        • Blue J
        • Judd K
        • Harman J
        Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer.
        Am J Surg. 2004; 188: 381-385
        • Berg WA
        • Gutierrez L
        • NessAiver MS
        • Carter WB
        • Bhargavan M
        • Lewis RS
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer 1.
        Radiology. 2004; 233: 830-849
        • Crystal P
        • Strano SD
        • Shcharynski S
        • Koretz MJ
        Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181: 177-182
        • Kaplan SS
        Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue 1.
        Radiology. 2001; 221: 641-649
        • Kolb TM
        • Lichy J
        • Newhouse JH
        Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US–diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics.
        Radiology. 1998; 207: 191-199
        • Kolb TM
        • Lichy J
        • Newhouse JH
        Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations 1.
        Radiology. 2002; 225: 165-175
        • Leconte I
        • Feger C
        • Galant C
        • Berlière M
        • Berg BV
        • D'Hoore W
        • et al.
        Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180: 1675-1679
        • Moon WK
        • Noh D-Y
        • Im J-G
        Multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancers: bilateral whole-breast US in the preoperative evaluation of patients 1.
        Radiology. 2002; 224: 569-576
        • Kelly KM
        • Dean J
        • Comulada WS
        • Lee S-J
        Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts.
        Eur Radiol. 2010; 20: 734-742
        • Berg WA
        • Blume JD
        • Cormack JB
        • Mendelson EB
        • Lehrer D
        • Böhm-Vélez M
        • et al.
        Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.
        JAMA. 2008; 299: 2151-2163
        • Giuliano V
        • Giuliano C
        Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts.
        Clin Imaging. 2013; 37: 480-486
        • Brem RF
        • Tabár L
        • Duffy SW
        • Inciardi MF
        • Guingrich JA
        • Hashimoto BE
        • et al.
        Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: The SomoInsight Study.
        Radiology. 2014; 274: 663-673
        • Weigert J
        • Steenbergen S
        The Connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts.
        Breast J. 2012; 18: 517-522
        • Saslow D
        • Boetes C
        • Burke W
        • Harms S
        • Leach MO
        • Lehman CD
        • et al.
        American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 75-89
        • Kuhl CK
        • Schrading S
        • Leutner CC
        • Morakkabati-Spitz N
        • Wardelmann E
        • Fimmers R
        • et al.
        Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 8469-8476
        • Kriege M
        • Brekelmans CT
        • Boetes C
        • Besnard PE
        • Zonderland HM
        • Obdeijn IM
        • et al.
        Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.
        N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 427-437
        • Leach MO
        • Boggis C
        • Dixon A
        • Easton D
        • Eeles R
        • Evans D
        • et al.
        Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).
        Lancet. 2005; 365: 1769-1778
        • Sardanelli F
        • Podo F
        Breast MR imaging in women at high-risk of breast cancer. Is something changing in early breast cancer detection?.
        Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 873-887
        • Warner E
        • Plewes DB
        • Hill KA
        • Causer PA
        • Zubovits JT
        • Jong RA
        • et al.
        Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.
        JAMA. 2004; 292: 1317-1325
        • Brem RF
        • Rapelyea JA
        • Zisman G
        • Mohtashemi K
        • Raub J
        • Teal CB
        • et al.
        Occult breast cancer: scintimammography with high-resolution breast-specific gamma camera in women at high risk for breast cancer 1.
        Radiology. 2005; 237: 274-280
        • Brem RF
        • Floerke AC
        • Rapelyea JA
        • Teal C
        • Kelly T
        • Mathur V
        Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer 1.
        Radiology. 2008; 247: 651-657
        • Tadwalkar R
        • Rapelyea J
        • Torrente J
        • Rechtman L
        • Teal C
        • McSwain A
        • et al.
        Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality for the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer with correlation to tumour size and grade.
        Breast. 2014; 85: e-212-e216
        • Brem RF
        • Petrovitch I
        • Rapelyea JA
        • Young H
        • Teal C
        • Kelly T
        Breast‐specific gamma imaging with 99mTc‐Sestamibi and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer—a comparative study.
        Breast J. 2007; 13: 465-469