Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening for Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Breast & Gynecological Diseases

  • 1124 Accesses

Abstract

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women accounting for 30% of all cancers, affects one in eight women, and is the second most common cause of cancer mortality. The size of the cancer at the time of diagnosis has been shown to be the single most important prognostic factor that determines disease outcome. The role of screening mammography is to detect cancer early in the preclinical phase where the chance of cure is the highest. The incidence of breast cancer has been rising in the recent decades, and multiple randomized clinical trials and other studies evaluating the efficacy of screening for breast cancer with mammography have conclusively and overwhelmingly proven the benefit of screening mammography in reducing mortality from breast cancer. This chapter outlines pertinent information useful to clinicians to understand the current data on the effectiveness of screening for breast cancer as well as the potential benefits and harms. The current guidelines and recommendations are outlined. The mammographic signs of cancer, optimizing mammographic interpretation, and the increasing use of digital breast tomosynthesis are discussed. The future trend toward introducing personalized screening tailored to the risk of developing breast cancer is presented, and the role of screening for breast cancer in men who are at a high risk of developing breast cancer is also described.

  • Screening Mammography: Benefits and Harms

  • Mammographic Signs of Cancer

  • Optimizing Mammographic Interpretation: Audit and Performance Benchmarks

  • Current Recommendations for the Use of Screening Mammography

  • Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

  • Role of Clinical Breast Exam and Self-Breast Examination in Detection of Breast Cancer

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  1. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2019-2020.pdf.

  2. Screening for various cancers. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/cancer/detection/variouscancer/en/index.html.

  3. Coldman A, Phillips N. Population studies of the effectiveness of mammographic screening. Prev Med. 2011;53:115–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Broeders M, Moss S, Nyström L, on behalf of the Euroscreen Working Group, et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen. 2012;19(Suppl 1):14–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group, et al. Breast-cancer screening—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2353–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seely JM. Alhassan screening for breast cancer in 2018— what should we be doing today? Curr Oncol. 2018;25(S1):S115–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, Pritchard KI. Breast cancer screening: beyond mortality. J Breast Imaging. 2019;1(3):161–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yaffe MJ, Mittmann N, Lee P, et al. Clinical outcomes of modelling mammography screening strategies. Health Rep. 2015;26(12):9–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and its data collection and sharing activities are funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute (P01CA154292, U54CA163303), Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCS-1504-30370), and Agency for Health Research and Quality (R01 HS018366-01A1). Downloaded xx/xx/xxxx from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Website – http://www.bcsc-research.org/. More information regarding the BCSC is available at: http://bcsc-research.org/.

  10. Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library; 2013. Health Technology Assessment, No. 17.13. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK260456/. Accessed on 24 Dec 2019.

  11. Helvie MA. Perspectives on the overdiagnosis of breast cancer associated with mammographic screening. J Breast Imaging. 2019;1(4):278–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Destounis S, Arieno A, Santacroce A. Screening mammography: there is value in screening women aged 75 and older. J Breast Imaging. 2019;1(3):182–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harvey JA. Overdiagnosis: a tale of two women. J Breast Imaging. 2019;1(4):275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, EUROSCREEN Working Group, et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19(Suppl 1):42–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johns LE, Coleman DA, Swerdlow AJ, Moss SM. Effect of population breast screening on breast cancer mortality up to 2005 in England and Wales: an individual-level cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(2):246–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Nyström L, Jonsson H. Overdiagnosis in the population-based service screening programme with mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years in Sweden. J Med Screen. 2012;19(1):14–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2587.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Njor SH, Olsen AH, Blichert-Toft M, Schwartz W, Vejborg I, Lynge E. Overdiagnosis in screening mammography in Denmark: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2013;346:f1064.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hendrick RE. Obligate overdiagnosis due to mammographic screening: a direct estimate for U.S. women. Radiology. 2018;287(2):391–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Arleo EK, Monticciolo DL, Monsees B, McGinty G, Sickles EA. Persistent untreated screening-detected breast cancer: an argument against delaying screening or increasing the interval between screenings. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(7):863–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998–2005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson RH, Chien FL, Bleyer A. Incidence of breast cancer with distant involvement among women in the United States, 1976 to 2009. JAMA. 2013;309(8):800–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Helvie MA, Chang JT, Hendrick RE, Banerjee M. Reduction in late stage breast cancer incidence in the mammography era: implications for overdiagnosis of invasive cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(17):2649–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Hankey BF. The increasing incidence of breast cancer since 1982: relevance of early detection. Cancer Causes Control. 1991;2(2):67–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U. S. Preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:256–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Houssami N. Overdiagnosis of breast cancer in population screening: does it make breast screening worthless? Cancer Biol Med. 2017;14(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Seely JM, Alhassan T. Screening for breast cancer in 2018— what should we be doing today? Curr Oncol. 2018;25(S1):S115–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481–92. 34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA, et al. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation. Radiology. 2009;253:632–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Onega T, et al. Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and national cancer institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer. 2014;120(19):2955–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Acerbi I, et al. Personalized breast cancer screening in a population-based study: women informed to screen depending on measures of risk (WISDOM) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio breast cancer symposium; 2018 Dec 4–8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res. 2019;79(4 Suppl): Abstract nr OT2-08-01.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shieh Y, Eklund M, Madlensky L, et al. Breast cancer screening in the precision medicine era: risk-based screening in a population-based trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(5):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. American Cancer Society. Key statistics for breast cancer in men. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer-in-men/about/key-statistics.html. Published 2019.

  36. Gao Y, Moy L, Heller SL. Male breast cancer in the age of genetic testing: an opportunity for early detection, tailored therapy, and surveillance. Radiographics. 2018;38:1289–311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gao Y, Goldberg JE, Young TK, Babb JS, Moy L, Heller SL. Breast cancer screening in high-risk men: a 12-year longitudinal observational study of male breast imaging utilization and outcomes. Radiology. 2019;293:282–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(1):35–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles E, Smith-Bindman R. Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology. 2009;250(3):648–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Thurfjell MG, Lindgren A, Thurfjell E. Nonpalpable breast cancer: mammographic appearance as predictor of histologic type. Radiology. 2002;222(1):165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gajdos C, Tartler PI, Bleiweiss IJ. Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics. Ann Surg. 2002;235(2):246–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Burrell HC, Pinder SE, Wilson AR, Evans AJ, Yeoman LJ, Elston CW, et al. The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions. Clin Radiol. 1996;51(4):277–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Woods RW, Sisney GS, Salkowski LR, Shinki K, Lin Y, Burnside ES. The mammographic density of a mass is a significant predictor of breast cancer. Radiology. 2011;258(2):417–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Tamaki K, Ishida T, Miyashita M, Amari M, Ohuchi N, Uehara K, Kamada Y, Tamaki N, Sasano H. Retrospective analysis of mammographic findings for Japanese women: a potential predictor for breast malignancies. Cancer Sci. 2012;103(3):472–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Paul SC, Joseph G, Stephen BE, Ellis GL. Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass. AJR. 2003;181:1679–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bahl ML, Leslie R, Lehman CD. Pathologic outcomes of architectural distortion on digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography. AJR. 2017;209(5):1162–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB. Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(1):216–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pujara AC, Hui J, Wang LC. Architectural distortion in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes and implications for management. Clin Imaging. 2019;54:133–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Walcott-Sapp S, Garreau J, Johnson N, Thomas KA. Pathology results of architectural distortion on detected with digital breast tomosynthesis without definite sonographic correlate. Am J Surg. 2019;217(5):857–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV. Architectural distortion on mammography: correlation with pathologic outcomes and predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(6):1339–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Samardar P, Shaw de Paredes E, Grimes MM, Wilson JD. Focal asymmetric densities seen at mammography: US and pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2002;22:19–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sickles EA. The spectrum of breast asymmetries: imaging features, work-up, management. Radiol Clin N Am. 2007;45(5):765–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sickles EA. Findings at mammographic screening on only one standard projection: outcomes analysis. Radiology. 1998;208(2):471–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kopans DB, Swan CA, White G, et al. Asymmetric breast tissue. Radiology. 1989;171(3):639–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Leung JWT, Sickles EA. Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(3):667–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sickles EA. Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR. 1986;146:661–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Shetty MK, Watson AB. Sonographic evaluation of focal asymmetric density of the breast. Ultrasound Q. 2002;18(2):115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Youk JH, Kim E, Hee Ko K, et al. Asymmetric mammographic findings based on the fourth edition of BI-RADS: types, evaluation, and management. Radiographics. 2009;29(1):1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Brenner RJ. Strategies in the evaluation of breast asymmetries. Appl Radiol. 1998;27:15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Reed SD, Buist DS, Anderson ML, Bowles EJ, Fitzgibbons D, Seger D, Newton KM. Short-term (1–2 mo) hormone therapy cessation before mammography. Menopause. 2009;16(6):1125–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Buist DS, Anderson ML, Reed SD, Aiello Bowles EJ, Fitzgibbons ED, Gandara JC, Seger D, Newton KM. Short-term hormone therapy suspension and mammography recall: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(11):752–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Majid AS, Parades ES, Doherty RD, Sharma NR. Salvador missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearls. Radiographics. 2003;23:881–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Roberts-Klein S, Iuanow E, Slaentz PJ. Avoiding pitfalls in mammographic interpretation. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2011;62:50–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O’Shaughnessy KF, Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening. Radiology. 2003;226:494–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Berlin L. Missed mammographic abnormalities, malpractice, and expert witnesses: does majority rule in the courtroom? [letter]. Radiology. 2003;229:288–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. 1993 ARRS President’s Award. Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:1167–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Logan-Young W, Bonaccio E, Zuley ML, Willison KM. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience. Radiology. 2004;232(2):578–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O’Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Brenner RJ. Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography. Radiology. 2004;230(3):811–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Noble M, Bruening W, Uhl S, Schoelles K. Computer aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;279(6):881–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Giess CS, Frost EP, Birdwell RL. Difficulties and errors in diagnosis of breast neoplasms. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2012;33:288–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Brenner RJ. False-negative mammograms: medical, legal, and risk management implications. Radiol Clin N Am. 2000;38:741–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology. 1992;184:613–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Goergen SK, Evans J, Cohen GP, et al. Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. Radiology. 1997;204:131–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Wolfe JN. Mammography: ducts as a sole indicator of breast carcinoma. Radiology. 1967;89:206–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Huynh PT, Parellada JA, de Paredes ES, et al. Dilated duct pattern at mammography. Radiology. 1997;204:137–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Chang CB, Lvoff NM, Leung JW, et al. Solitary dilated duct identified at mammography: outcomes analysis. AJR. 2010;194:378–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Crowe DJ, Helvie MA, Wilson TE. Breast infection. Mammographic and sonographic findings with clinical correlation. Investig Radiol. 1995;30(10):582–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Kwak JY, Kim EK, Chung SY, You JK, Oh KK, Lee YH, et al. Unilateral breast edema: spectrum of etiologies and imaging appearances. Yonsei Med J. 2005;46:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. An YY, Kim SH, Cha ES, et al. Diffuse infiltrative lesion of the breast: clinical and radiologic features. Korean J Radiol. 2011;12(1):113–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Han BK, Choe YH, Park JM, Moon WK, Ko YH, Yang JH, et al. Granulomatous mastitis: mammographic and sonographic appearances. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:317–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. Mammography facilities requirement for accrediting bodies, and quality standards and certifying requirements: interim rules (21 CFR 900). December 21, 1993;58:57558–72.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Institute of Medicine. Improving breast imaging quality standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005. p. 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Carney PA, Sickles EA, Monsees BA, Bassett LA, et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology. 2010;255(2):354–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA. 2003;290:2129–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Barlow WE, et al. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists’ medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology. 2005;236:37–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, Kirkpatrick A, Chang S, Berbaum K, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(5):369–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Elmore Carney PA. Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(5):321–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Buist DS, Anderson ML, Haneuse SJ, et al. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States. Radiology. 2011;259(1):72–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, et al. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):481–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examination in diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(5):1173–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Carney PA, Abraham L, Cook A, Feig SA, Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Elmore JG. Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(9):1114–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Carney PA, Bowles EJ, Sickles EA, Geller BM, Feig SA, Jackson S, Brown D, Cook A, Yankaskas BC, Miglioretti DL, Elmore JG. Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(4):495–503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Carney PA, Geller BM, Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Aiello Bowles EJ, Abraham L, Feig SA, Brown D, Cook AJ, Yankaskas BC, Elmore JG. Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists’ thresholds for conducting additional work-up. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(3):369–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Perry NM. Breast cancer screening--the European experience. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2004;49(5):228–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Adcock KA. Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. Perm J. 2004;8(2):12–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Hayward JH, Ray KM, Wisner DJ, Kornak J, Lin W, Joe BN, Sickles EA. Improving screening mammography outcomes through comparison with multiple prior mammograms. AJR. 2016;207:918–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Carney PA, Parikh J, Sickles EA, Feig SA, Monsees B, Bassett LW, Smith RA, Rosenberg R, Ichikawa L, Wallace J, Tran K, Miglioretti DL. Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria. Radiology. 2013;267(2):359–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;235:775–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Jackson SL, Cook AJ, Miglioretti DL, et al. Are radiologists goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations? Acad Radiol. 2012;19(3):289–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL, Lee JM, Buist DSM, Kerlikowske K, Henderson LM, Onega T, Tosteson ANA, Rauscher GH, Miglioretti DL. National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 2017;283(1):49–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Sprague BL, Arao RF, Miglioretti DL, Henderson LM, Buist DSM, Onega T, Rauscher GH, Lee JM, Tosteson ANA, Kerlikowske K, Lehman CD. National performance benchmarks for modern diagnostic digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 2017;283(1):59–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Hendrick RE, et al. Breast cancer screening for average-risk women: recommendations from the ACR Commission on breast imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:1137–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/docs/statements/Position-Statement-on-Screening-Mammography.pdf.

  105. Bevers TB, Helvie M, Bonaccio E, et al. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis, version 3.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16(11):1362–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Practice-Bulletins/Committee-on-Practice-Bulletins-Gynecology/Breast-Cancer-Risk-Assessment-and-Screening-in-Average-Risk-Women?IsMobileSet=false.

  107. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/special-coverage/american-cancer-society-breast-cancer-screening-guidelines.html.

  108. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/breast-cancer-screening.

  109. Arleo EK, Hendrick RE, Helvie MA, Sickles EA. Comparison of recommendations for screening mammography using CISNET models. Cancer. 2017;123(19):3673–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1245–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Kopans DB. Arguments against mammography screening continue to be based on faulty science. Oncologist. 2014;19(2):107–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Larsson LG, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, Tabár L, Nyström L. Updated overview of the Swedish randomized trials on breast cancer screening with mammography: age group 40–49 at randomization. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Malmgren J, Parikh JA, Atwood MK, Kaplan HJ. Impact of mammography detection on the course of breast cancer in women aged 40–49 years. Radiology. 2012;262(3):797–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. 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(20):2444–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Marinovich ML, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(9):942–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Hofvind S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2018;287(3):787–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Bernardi D, et al. Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(7):1232–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fantò C, Ostillio L, Tuttobene P, Luparia A, Houssami N. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1105–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Hovda T, Brandal SHB, Sebuødegård S, Holen ÅS, Bjørndal H, Skaane P, Hofvind S. Screening outcome for consecutive examinations with digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(12):6991–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Conant EF, Zuckerman SP, McDonald ES, et al. Five consecutive years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes by screening year and round. Radiology. 2020;295(2):285–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Meissner HI, Breen N, Yabroff KR. Whatever happened to clinical breast examination. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25(3):259–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1672–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Weiss NS. Breast cancer mortality in relation to clinical breast examination and breast self examination. Breast J. 2003;9(Suppl 2):S86–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Barton MB, Harris R, Fletcher SW. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How? JAMA. 1999;282:1270–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50–59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1490–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Okonkwo QL, Draisma G, Kinderen AD, et al. Breast Cancer screening policies in developing countries: a cost effectiveness analysis for India. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1290–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Kearney AJ, Murray M. Breast cancer screening recommendations: is mammography the only answer? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009;54:393–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. O’Malley MS, Fletcher SW, US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer with breast self-examination: a critical review. JAMA. 1987;257:2196–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1445–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Semiglazov VF, et al. Study of the role of breast self-examination in the reduction of mortality from breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A:2039–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Miller AB, Bianes CJ. The role of clinical breast examination and breast self-examination. Prev Med. 2011;53:118–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Harvey BJ, et al. Effect of breast self-examination techniques on the risk of death from breast cancer. CMAJ. 1997;157(9):1205–12.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Gastrin G, et al. Incidence and mortality from breast cancer in the Mama program for breast screening in Finland, 1973–1986. Cancer. 1994;73:2168–74. c. J. 157, 1205–1212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Mahesh K. Shetty

Authors
  1. Mahesh K. Shetty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahesh K. Shetty .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Mahesh K. Shetty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shetty, M.K. (2021). Screening for Breast Cancer. In: Shetty, M.K. (eds) Breast & Gynecological Diseases. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69476-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69476-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69475-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69476-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation