Contents

Search

mammography

Indications: - screening & diagnosis of breast disease - screening for breast cancer Benefit/risk: - of no benefit for prevention of breast cancer mortality [31] - number need to harm - 2 within 10 years for false positive [31] - 5 within 10 years for unnecessary surgery [31] - U.S. women are more likely to be aware of screening's benefits than its harms [40] - AI-supported mammography screening results in a similar rate of cancer detection reading by 2 radiologist, with a substantially lower radiologist workload [45] Procedure: - imaging studies of the breasts by means of X-rays, ultrasound, & nuclear magnetic resonance - mammography device with option for patient-assisted compression FDA-approved Sept 2017 [41] Adverse effects: - may in increase risk of breast cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation [17] - increases risk from 22% to 35% by age 40 if mammogram(s) prior to age 30 [17] Notes: - benefits of screening mammography often exaggerated [13] - 1/3 of breast cancers may be a result of overdiagnosis [18] - mortality reduction from breast cancer due to screening is 2.4 per 100,000 or ~1/3 (2.4/7.2) of the 7.2 per 100,000 deaths from breast cancer [10] - no mortality benefit in annual mammography [24] - overdiagnosis > 20% in the lesions found [24] - women with false-positive results on screening mammography are more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer than women with true-negative results [35,39] - overall breast cancer mortality has declined similarly (40-42%) in women > 40 & women < 40 years of age [18] - women < 40 years of age are not frequently screened [18] - clinical trials have not included women > 74 years of age, thus benefits of screening for breast cancer with mammography in patients >= 75 years of age is unknown [22] - potentially overdiagnosed breast cancer* accounts for 47% of breast cancers in women 75-84 years & 54% of breast cancers in women >= 85 years [46] * overdiagnosed breast cancer refers to breast cancer detected by screening that would not have caused clinical disease if screening had not occurred [46] * false positives - false positive may delay subsequent mammograms [39] - false positives decrease likelihood of return for screening [48] - false-positives with 20-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer of 11.3%, vs 7.3% for controls (RR=1.6) [47] - association strongest in women 60-76 years, women with lower breast density, & cases of biopsy with diagnosis of benign nature - association strongest for ipsilateral cancers [47] Recommendations*: - US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) [2] - screening mammography with or without clinical breast examination every 1-2 years for women age 50 & older - no consensus on upper age limit to discontinue screening, but USPSTF suggests upper age limit of 75 [2] - American Cancer Society recommends annual screening mammography for all women age 45-54 & biennial screening for women age >=55 until life expectancy is < 10 years [34] - women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening mammography at age 40 & continue annual screening indefinitely [34] - American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - screening mammography annually for women age 40 & older [12] - screening older women every 2 years reduces false positives (29% vs 48% for annual screening) without change in characteristics of breast cancer diagnoses [19] - no upper age limit [8] - uncertain benefit for women > 75-80 years of age [1,9] * most recent randomized trial of screening mammography occurred > 50 years ago * of 1000 women 50 years of age screened yearly for 10 years, 0.3-3.2 fewer breast cancer deaths, 490-670 false-positives & 3-14 overdiagnoses usually leading to unnecessary treatment [23] Sensitivity: 87%, Specificity 97% [4] Sensitivity: 36%*, positive predictive value: 89% [5] False positives: - annual screening 10 year window: 61% of women - biennial screening 10 year window: 42% of women [14] In this same study (BRCA+ women), sensitivity of MRI = 77% [5] Mammographic breast density: [3] 1) risk factor for breast cancer 2) genetically determined 3) 4 categories of mammographic density [7] a) almost entirely fat (< 25%) b) scattered fibroglandular densities (25-50%) c) heterogenously dense (51-75%) d) extremely dense (>75%) 4) some states may require informing women whether they have dense breast tissue - and if so, that dense tissue may hide tumors on mammograms & increase one's risk for breast cancer [17] 5) FDA proposes that information on breast density must be included in the mammography summary letter sent to patients [42] 5) radiologists often disagree when assessing breast density on mammograms [38] 3 parameters adversely affecting mammographic screening all affect breast density: [4] 1) menopausal hormone therapy - short-term hormone therapy suspension before mammography not helpful [9] 2) prior breast surgery 3) body mass index < 25 supplemental ultrasonography to screen women with dense breasts of little benefit [29] breast density alone shouldn't guide decisions about supplemental screening [32] incorporating breast cancer risk assessment into mammogram reporting could help determine which women would benefit from supplemental screening [32,33] 5-year risk for advanced breast cancer more useful than breast density [43] Digital mammography vs film mammography: - digital mammography may be better than conventional film mammography when breast tissue is dense [6,15] - some cancers may be detected by film only or by digital imaging only. - women with heterogenously dense or extremely dense breast tissue (BI-RADS categories) should undergo routine digital screening mammography [1] - computer-aided detection during screening mammography is associated with higher rates of false-positives & subsequent testing, a higher rate of ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis, & earlier-stage diagnosis of invasive breast cancer [20,44] - computer-aided detection does not improve mammography accuracy [33] 3D mammography (tomosynthesis) imaging FDA-approved Feb 2011 - increases cancer detection rates compared with digital mammography alone [27,37] - associated with reduced rates of recall for additional imaging [36,37] American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting & Data System (BI-RADS) Assessment Categories: - 0: incomplete assessment; need additional imaging evaluation, prior mammograms for comparison, or both - 1: negative; normal mammographic study - 2: benign findings - 3: probably benign findings; initial short-interval follow-up suggested - 4: suspicious abnormality; biopsy should be considered - 5: highly suggestive of malignancy; appropriate action should be taken - 6: known-biopsy-proven malignancy; appropriate action should be taken FDA proposes known 'biopsy proven malignancy' available for mammography reports so the it is clear that cancers being mammographically assessed for treatment are already known & identified [42] FDA can contact patients & providers directly when a facility does not meet reporting requirements [42]

Related

breast cancer screening for breast cancer

Specific

3D mammography; digital mammography; breast tomosynthesis galactography; breast ductography mammographic guidance for needle placement mammography for biopsy-proven breast cancer

General

radiography (roentgenography)

References

  1. Medical Knowledge Self Assessment Program (MKSAP) 16, 17. American College of Physicians, Philadelphia 2012, 2015
  2. Journal Watch 22(8):64, 2002 - U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009 Nov 17; 151:716. PMID: 19920272 - Mandelblatt JS et al. for the Breast Cancer Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009 Nov 17; 151:738. PMID: 19920274 - Kerlikowske K. Evidence-based breast cancer prevention: The importance of individual risk. Ann Intern Med 2009 Nov 17; 151:750.
  3. Journal Watch 22(21):159, 2002 Boyd NF et al Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:886, 2002 PMID: 12239257
  4. Journal Watch 24(21):161, 2004 Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V, Bull D, Crossley B, Simmonds M, Hilton E, Bailey S, Barrett N, Briers P, English R, Jackson A, Kutt E, Lavelle J, Rockall L, Wallis MG, Wilson M, Patnick J. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ. 2004 Aug 28;329(7464):477. PMID: 15331472 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7464/477
  5. Journal Watch 24(21):164, 2004 Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, Cutrara MR, DeBoer G, Yaffe MJ, Messner SJ, Meschino WS, Piron CA, Narod SA. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004 Sep 15;292(11):1317-25. PMID: 15367553
  6. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D'Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M; Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17):1773-83. Epub 2005 Sep 16. PMID: 16169887 - Dershaw DD. Film or digital mammographic screening? N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17):1846-7. No abstract available. PMID: 16251541
  7. Chen J et al, Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:1215 PMID: 16954474 - Barlow WE et al, Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:1204 PMID: 16954473 - Bondy ML & Newman LA Assessing breast cancer risk: Evolution of the Gail Model. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:1172 PMID: 16954464
  8. Badgwell BD, Giordano SH, Duan ZZ, Fang S, Bedrosian I, Kuerer HM, Singletary SE, Hunt KK, Hortobagyi GN, Babiera G. Mammography before diagnosis among women age 80 years and older with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2482-8. Epub 2008 Apr 21. PMID: 18427152 - Women 80 and older benefit from mammography, but few are screened [press release]. Alexandria, VA: ASCO American Society of Clinical Oncology; Apr 21 , 2008. http://tinyurl.com/d2vnhx - Rabin RC. Screening for cancer in elderly fuels fight. New York Times . Jul 8 , 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/08canc.html - Berry DA et al Flawed inferences about screening mammography's benefit based on observational data. J Clin Oncol 2009 Feb 1; 27:639 PMID: 19075270 - Schonberg MA and McCarthy EP Mammography screening among women age 80 years and older: Consider the risks. J Clin Oncol 2009 Feb 1; 27:640. PMID: 19075269
  9. Buist DSM et al Short-Term Hormone Therapy Suspension and Mammography Recall Annals of Internal Medicine (June 2, 2009) 150(11):752-765 PMID: 19487710
  10. Kalager M et al. Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med 2010 Sep 23; 363:1203. PMID: 20860502 - Welch HG. Screening mammography - A long run for a short slide? N Engl J Med 2010 Sep 23; 363:1276. PMID: 20860510
  11. FDA News Release Feb 11, 2011 FDA approves first 3-D mammography imaging system http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm243072.htm
  12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 122: Breast Cancer Screening Ostetrics & Gynecology 2011 122:372 PMID: 21775869 http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Citation/2011/08000/Practice_Bulletin_No__122__Breast_Cancer_Screening.40.aspx
  13. Welch HG and Frankel BA Likelihood That a Woman With Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Has Had Her "Life Saved" by That Screening Arch Intern Med. Published online October 24, 2011 PMID: 22025097 http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.476 - Wilt TJ and Partin MR Comment on "Likelihood That a Woman With Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Has Had Her "Life Saved" by That Screening" Arch Intern Med. Published online October 24, 2011 PMID: 22025096 http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/archinternmed.2011.509v1
  14. Hubbard RA et al. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011 Oct 18; 155:481 PMID: 22007042
  15. Kerlikowske K et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011 Oct 18; 155:493. PMID: 22007043
  16. Pijpe A et al Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK) BMJ 2012;345:e5660 PMID: 22956590 http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5660
  17. Grady D New Laws Add a Divisive Component to Breast Screening New York Times, Oct 24, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/health/laws-tell-mammogram-clinics-to-address-breast-density.html?_r=0
  18. Bleyer A and Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast- cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 2012 Nov 22; 367:1998 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1206809
  19. Braithwaite D et al Screening Outcomes in Older US Women Undergoing Multiple Mammograms in Community Practice: Does Interval, Age or Comorbidity Score Affect Tumor Characteristics or False Positive Rates? JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. Feb 5, 2013 PMID: 23385442 http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/01/jnci.djs645.abstract
  20. Fenton JJ et al. Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer- aided detection: A population-based study of Medicare enrollees. Ann Intern Med 2013 Apr 16; 158:580 PMID: 23588746
  21. Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings SR. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 5;155(1):10-20 PMID: 21727289
  22. Geriatric Review Syllabus, 8th edition (GRS8) Durso SC and Sullivan GN (eds) American Geriatrics Society, 2013
  23. Welch HG and Passow HJ. Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. JAMA Intern Med 2013 Dec 30; PMID: 24380095 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1792915 - Schonberg MA et al. Development and evaluation of a decision aid on mammography screening for women 75 years and older. JAMA Intern Med 2013 Dec 30 PMID: 24378846 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1792914
  24. Miller AB et al Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ 2014;348:g366 PMID: 24519768 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g366 - Kalager M et al Too much mammography. BMJ 2014;348:g1403 PMID: 24519765 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1403
  25. Schonberg MA, Silliman RA, Marcantonio ER. Weighing the benefits and burdens of mammography screening among women age 80 years or older. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Apr 10;27(11):1774-80. PMID: 19255318
  26. Walter LC, Eng C, Covinsky KE. Screening mammography for frail older women: what are the burdens? J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Nov;16(11):779-84. PMID: 11722693
  27. Friedewald SM et al Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499-2507 PMID: 25058084 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1883018 - Pisano ED and Yaffe MJ Breast Cancer Screening. Should Tomosynthesis Replace Digital Mammography? JAMA. 2014;311(24):2488-2489 PMID: 25058082 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1882992
  28. Walter LC, Schonberg MA. Screening mammography in older women: a review. JAMA. 2014;311:1336-1347 PMID: 24691609
  29. Haas JS, Kaplan CP The Divide Between Breast Density Notification Laws and Evidence-Based Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Legislating Practice. JAMA Intern Med. Published online July 06, 2015 PMID: 2614764 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2363026 - Harding C, Pompei F, Burmistrov D et al Breast Cancer Screening, Incidence, and Mortality Across US Counties. JAMA Intern Med. Published online July 06, 2015 PMID: 26147578 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2363025 - Elmore JG, Etzioni R Effect of Screening Mammography on Cancer Incidence and Mortality. JAMA Intern Med. Published online July 06, 2015 PMID: 26147329 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2363022 - Sprague BL et al Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Supplemental Ultrasonography Screening for Women With Dense Breasts. Ann Intern Med. Published online 9 December 2014 PMID: 25486550 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2020458
  30. Barratt A Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: a 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality. BMJ 2015;350:h867 PMID: 25736426 http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h867
  31. The NNT: Screening Mammography for Reducing Deaths (and Specifically, Breast Cancer Deaths) http://www.thennt.com/nnt/screening-mammography-for-reducing-deaths/ - Gotzsche PC1, Jorgensen KJ Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 4;6:CD001877 PMID: 23737396
  32. Kerlikowske K et al Identifying Women With Dense Breasts at High Risk for Interval Cancer: A Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(10):673-681. PMID: 25984843 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2293233 - Dolan NC, Goel MS It's Not All About Breast Density: Risk Matters. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(10):729-730 PMID: 25984851 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2293242
  33. Lehman CD et al Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection. JAMA Intern Med. Published online September 28, 2015 PMID: 26414882 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2443369 - Fenton J Is It Time to Stop Paying for Computer-Aided Mammography? JAMA Intern Med. Published online September 28, 2015 PMID: 26414612 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2443366
  34. Kerlikowske K Progress Toward Consensus on Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines and Reducing Screening Harms. JAMA Intern Med. Published online October 20, 2015 PMID: 26502319 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2463847
  35. Henderson LM et al Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False- Positive Screening Mammogram. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. Dec 2, 2015 PMID: 26631292 http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/09/1055-9965.EPI-15-0623.abstract
  36. McDonald ES et al Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography. Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA Oncol. Published online February 18, 2016. PMID: 26893205 http://oncology.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2491465 - Houssami N, Miglioretti DL Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. A Brave New World of Mammography Screening. JAMA Oncol. Published online February 18, 2016 PMID: 26892954 http://oncology.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2491463
  37. Rafferty EA et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and nondense breasts. JAMA 2016 Apr 26; 315:1784. PMID: 27115381 - Kressin NR et al. Content, readability, and understandability of dense breast notifications by state. JAMA 2016 Apr 26; 315:1786. PMID: 27115382
  38. Sprague BL, Conant EF, Onega T et al Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study. Ann Intern Med. Published online 19 July 2016 PMID: 27428568 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2534407
  39. Dabbous FM, Dolecek TA, Berbaum ML Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 9 2017 PMID: 28183826 http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/early/recent
  40. Yu J, Nagler RH, Fowler EF, Kerlikowske K, Gollust SE. Women's awareness and perceived importance of the harms and benefits of mammography screening: Results from a 2016 national survey. JAMA Intern Med 2017 Jun 26; PMID: 28654987
  41. FDA News Release. September 1, 2017 FDA clears mammography device with option for patient-assisted compression. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm574562.htm
  42. FDA News Release. March 27, 2019 FDA advances landmark policy changes to modernize mammography services and improve their quality. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm634509.htm
  43. Kerlikowske K, Sprague BL, Tosteson ANA et al. Strategies to identify women at high risk of advanced breast cancer during routine screening for discussion of supplemental imaging. JAMA Intern Med 2019 Jul 1; PMID: 31260054 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2737320 - Richman IB, Busch SH. Advising women about supplemental screening after dense breast notification: Still no easy answers. JAMA Intern Med 2019 Jul 1 PMID: 31260063 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2737316
  44. Sklar JF Digital Mammography Drives Higher Detection Rates of DCIS. Cancer Therapy Avisor. April 28, 2021 https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/cancer-topics/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-digital-mammography-higher-detection-rates-dcis/
  45. Lang K et al Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. Lancet Oncology. 2023. 24(8):P936-944. August PMID: 37541274 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00298-X/fulltext
  46. Richman IB et al. Estimating breast cancer overdiagnosis after screening mammography among older women in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2023 Aug 8; [e-pub] PMID: 37549389 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-0133
  47. Mao X, He W, Humphreys K et al. Breast cancer incidence after a false-positive mammography result. JAMA Oncol 2024 Jan; 10:63. PMID: 37917078 PMCID: PMC10623302 Free PMC article https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2811409
  48. Bassett M False-Positive Mammograms May Discourage Subsequent Screenings. Recommendations for short-interval follow-up or biopsy likely a factor. MedPage Today September 2, 2024 https://www.medpagetoday.com/hematologyoncology/breastcancer/111753 - Miglioretti DL, Abraham L, Sprague BL Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Sep 3. PMID: 39222505
  49. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Risk Calculator https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm

Images

images related to mammography