Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer

  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Increased breast density, among other calculated risk factors, decreases the sensitivity of screening mammography. Several supplementary imaging modalities including breast ultrasound, breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and molecular breast imaging (MBI) can be used in addition to screening mammograms to increase the sensitivity of cancer detection in above-average-risk women and will be discussed here.

Recent Findings

Ultrasound is the most widely used and accessible supplementary screening method that improves the cancer detection rate. MRI, the most sensitive supplemental breast imaging modality, is used to detect and visualize additional cancers in those with a lifetime risk of breast cancer at or greater than 20%. Small studies indicate that CEM has cancer detection rates equivalent to MRI; nevertheless, more evidence is needed to demonstrate its use. MBI has shown promise to be an adjunct to mammography for patients with dense breasts and for situations in which breast MRI is contraindicated. Despite this promising research, the American College of Radiology currently does not recommend the use of MBI for screening.

Summary

In women who have a higher-than-average risk of developing breast cancer, additional imaging modalities, such as breast ultrasound, breast magnetic resonance imaging, contrast-enhanced mammography, and molecular breast imaging, can be used in conjunction with screening mammograms to increase the sensitivity of cancer detection.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. American College of Radiology. ACR appropriateness criteria: supplemental breast cancer screening based on density. Revised 2021. Accessed January 12, 2023. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3158166/Narrative/.

  2. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography [published correction appears in CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 May-Jun;57(3):185]. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Broeders M, Moss S, Nyström L, 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. https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2012.012078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nickson C, Mason KE, English DR, Kavanagh AM. Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case-control study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(9):1479–88. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260(3):658–63. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.034.

  7. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2). https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1706

  8. Vegunta S, Kling JM, Patel BK. Supplemental cancer screening for women with dense breasts: guidance for health care professionals. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2021;96(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.06.001. Findings from this study outline supplemental screening guidelines for women with dense breasts to help guide healthcare professionals/PCPs choose the correct modality for breast cancer screening.

  9. Shermis RB, Wilson KD, Doyle MT, Martin TS, Merryman D, Kudrolli H, Brenner RJ. Supplemental breast cancer screening with molecular breast imaging for women with dense breast tissue. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(2). https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15924.

  10. Cohen SL, Margolies LR, Schwager SJ, Zuckerman S, Patel N, Szabo J, Sonnenblick E. Early discussion of breast density and supplemental breast cancer screening: is it possible? Breast J. 2014;20(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12251.

  11. Weinstein SP, Slanetz PJ, Lewin AA, Battaglia T, Chagpar AB, Dayaratna S, Dibble EH, Goel MS, Hayward JH, Kubicky CD, Le-Petross HT, Newell MS, Sanford MF, Scheel JR, Vincoff NS, Yao K, Moy L. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® supplemental breast cancer screening based on breast density. J Am Coll Radiol, 2021;18(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.09.002. Findings from this study provide evidence-based criteria for the most relevant radiographic modality for breast cancer screening based on breast density.

  12. DenseBreast-Info website. Legislation and regulation. Revised July 5, 2022. Accessed January 12, 2023. https://densebreast-info.org/legislative-information/state-legislation-map/.

  13. Eriksson M, Czene K, Strand F, Zackrisson S, Lindholm P, Lång K, Förnvik D, Sartor H, Mavaddat N, Easton D, Hall P. Identification of women at high risk of breast cancer who need supplemental screening. Radiology, 2020;297(2). https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2020201620. Findings from this study establish a protocol to identify women that, although have negative screening results, are in actuality potentially high-risk patients.

  14. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, Shah K. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):268–78. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1789.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Rebolj M, Assi V, Brentnall A, Parmar D, Duffy SW. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bri J Cancer. 2018;118(12). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0080-3.

  16. Scheel JR, Lee JM, Sprague BL, Lee CI, Lehman CD. Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.048.

  17. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer [published correction appears in JAMA. 2010 Apr 21;303(15):1482]. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–63. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.18.2151.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1394–404. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kornecki A. Current status of contrast enhanced mammography: a comprehensive review. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2022;73(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371211029047.

  20. Carmeliet P, Jain RK. Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature 2000;407(6801). https://doi.org/10.1038/35025220.

  21. Knopp MV, Weiss E, Sinn HP, Mattern J, Junkermann H, Radeleff J, Magener A, Brix G, Delorme S, Zuna I, van Kaick G. Pathophysiologic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging, 1999;10(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<260::AID-JMRI6>3.0.CO;2-7.

  22. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Moy L. Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26654.

  23. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1450–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.0839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(22):2091–102. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1903986.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, Balleyguier C. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol, 2011;21(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y.

  26. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, Ferrara J, Morris EA. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 2013;266(3). https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121084.

  27. Sogani J, Mango VL, Keating D, Sung JS, Jochelson MS. Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future. Clin Imaging. 2021;69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.09.003.

  28. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):371–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3023-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. American College of Radiology. American College Of Radiology launches contrast enhanced mammography imaging screening trial. Published October 19, 2022. Accessed January 13, 2023. https://www.acr.org/Media-Center/ACR-News-Releases/2022/American-College-of-Radiology-Launches-Contrast-Enhanced-Mammography-Imaging-Screening-Trial.

  30. Coffey K, Jochelson MS. Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening [published online ahead of print, 2022 Sep 10]. Eur J Radiol. 2022;156:110513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Covington MF, Parent EE, Dibble EH, Rauch GM, Fowler AM. Advances and future directions in molecular breast imaging. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(1). https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.261988.

  32. Rhodes D, Hunt K, Conners A, et al. Molecular breast imaging and tomosynthesis to eliminate the reservoir of undetected cancer in dense breasts: The Density MATTERS trial [abstr]. Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):PD4–05.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Charles De Jesus and Tanya W. Moseley contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Box 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Charles De Jesus, Tanya W. Moseley, Hanna R. Ferreira Dalla Pria, Hannah L. Chung, Mary S. Guirguis & Miral M. Patel

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

    Valentina Diaz

  3. Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ, USA

    Varnita Vishwanath & Shanen Jean

  4. National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Ahmed Elhatw

Authors
  1. Charles De Jesus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tanya W. Moseley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valentina Diaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Varnita Vishwanath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shanen Jean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ahmed Elhatw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hanna R. Ferreira Dalla Pria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hannah L. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mary S. Guirguis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Miral M. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of this review. All authors gave final approval of the version of the review to be published, and all authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanya W. Moseley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Drs. Chung, De Jesus, Elhatw, Ferreira Dalla Pria, Guirguis, and Patel, Ms. Diaz, Ms. Jean, and Ms. Vishwanath declare that they have no conflict of interest. Dr. Moseley is a medical imaging consultant for Merit Medical, Hologic, and Siemens Medical.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Jesus, C., Moseley, T.W., Diaz, V. et al. Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 15, 97–102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00481-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00481-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation