Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

S3-Leitlinie Mammakarzinom: Aktuelles zur Früherkennung und zum Mammographie-Screening

S3 guideline breast cancer: update on early detection, and mammography screening

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Im Rahmen der Aktualisierung der S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms (Version 4.0, Dezember 2017, AWMF-Registernummer 032-045OL www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de) sollen die Neuerungen und Änderungen gegenüber 2012 zu Früherkennung und Mammographiescreening vorgestellt werden. Gliederung und Abbildungen folgen dem Originaltext.

Abstract

Based on the update of the S3-Guideline Early Detection, Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up Care of Breast Cancer (Version 4.0, December 2017, AWMF registry number 032-045OL, www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de), evolving topics and relevant changes to the former 2012 version concerning early detection and mammography screening are presented. The outline and figures follow the original text.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Albert US, Altland H, Duda V (2008) Stufe-3-Leitlinie Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland. Zuckschwerdt, München

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aujero MP, Gavenonis SC, Benjamin R, Zhang Z, Holt JS (2017) Clinical performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography combined with tomosynthesis in a large screening population. Radiology 283(1):70–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carney PA et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138(3):168–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Caumo F et al (2014) Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast 23(1):76–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Duffy SW et al (2016) Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 17(1):109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. ECIBC, E.C.I.o.B.C. (2016) Evidencereport update. Available from: http://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/recommendations/list/3. Zugegriffen: 17.11.2017

  7. Gartlehner G et al (2013) Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009632.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Helvie MA et al (2014) Reduction in late-stage breast cancer incidence in the mammography era: implications for overdiagnosis of invasive cancer. Cancer 120(17):2649–2656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hodgson R et al (2016) Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast 27:52–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Houssami N, Bernardi D, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fantò C, Ostillio L, Tuttobene P, Luparia A, Macaskill P (2017) Breast cancer detection using single-reading of breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) compared to double-reading of 2D-mammography: Evidence from a population-based trial.(Storm-2). Cancer Epidemiol 47:94–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. IARC, I.A.f.R.o.C. (2016) Breast Cancer Screening. IARC Handbook of Cancer Prevention

  12. Lang K et al (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26(1):184–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lauby-Secretan B et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372(24):2353–2358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie. S3-Leitlinie Mammakarzinom Version 4.0. Dezember 2017©. www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de u. Erstellung von Patientenleitlinien zu S3 Leitlinien/NVL im Rahmen der Leitlinienprogramme.2017; Available from: www.patienten-information.de/patientenleitlinien. Zugegriffen: 17.11.2017

  15. Lühnen J et al (2017) Leitlinie evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsinformation. http://www.leitlinie-gesundheitsinformation.de. Zugegriffen: 17.11.2017

    Google Scholar 

  16. Melnikow J et al (2016) Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 164(4):268–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Miglioretti DL et al (2015) Breast tumor prognostic characteristics and biennial vs annual mammography, age, and menopausal status. JAMA Oncol 1(8):1069–1077

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Moss SM et al (2015) Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 16(9):1123–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Müller-Schimpfle M et al (2016) BI-RADS die 5.–Eine Kurzmitteilung aus deutsch-/österreichischer Sicht. Fortschr Röntgenstr 188:346–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nelson HD et al (2016) Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and Meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164(4):244–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nothacker M et al (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 9:335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Obi N et al (2011) Impact of the Quality assured Mamma Diagnostic (QuaMaDi) programme on survival of breast cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol 35(3):286–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Oeffinger KC et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ohuchi N et al (2016) Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387(10016):341–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. RKI (2015) Krebs in Deutschland 2011/2012. http://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Publikationen/Krebs_in_Deutschland/kid_2015/krebs_in_deutschland_2015.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schaefer FK et al (2010) Influence of additional breast ultrasound on cancer detection in a cohort study for quality assurance in breast diagnosis—analysis of 102,577 diagnostic procedures. Eur Radiol 20(5):1085–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Simbrich A et al (2016) Trends in advanced breast cancer incidence rates after implementation of a mammography screening program in a German population. Cancer Epidemiol 44:44–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Siu AL (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164(4):279–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tagliafico AS et al (2016) Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol 34(16):1882–1888

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Organization WHO (2014) WHO position paper on mammography screening. World Health Organization, Paris

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Mitglieder der Arbeitsgruppe der Stufe-3-Leitlinie Mammakarzinom

Friedrich Degenhardt; Jutta Engel; Markus Hahn; Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Dieter Hölzel; Alexander Katalinic; Markus Müller-Schimpfle

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement, c/o Philipps-Universität, Karl-von-Frisch-Str. 1, 35043, Marburg, Deutschland

    Ute-Susann Albert

  2. Radiologische Ambulanz Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland

    Ingrid Schreer

Authors
  1. Ute-Susann Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ingrid Schreer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Arbeitsgruppe der Stufe-3-Leitlinie Mammarkarzinom

  • Friedrich Degenhardt
  • , Jutta Engel
  • , Markus Hahn
  • , Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner
  • , Dieter Hölzel
  • , Alexander Katalinic
  •  & Markus Müller-Schimpfle

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ute-Susann Albert.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

U.-S. Albert und I. Schreer geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Mitglieder der Arbeitsgruppe der Stufe-3-Leitlinie werden am Beitragsende gelistet

Dieser Beitrag erschien ursprünglich in der Zeitschrift „Der Gynäkologe“ 07/2018 · 51:514–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-018-4278-5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albert, US., Schreer, I. & Arbeitsgruppe der Stufe-3-Leitlinie Mammarkarzinom. S3-Leitlinie Mammakarzinom: Aktuelles zur Früherkennung und zum Mammographie-Screening. Radiologe 59, 13–18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-018-0473-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-018-0473-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation