Advertisement

Der Gynäkologe

, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 514–520 | Cite as

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

  • Ute-Susann Albert
  • Ingrid Schreer
  • Arbeitsgruppe der Stufe-3-Leitlinie Mammarkarzinom
Leitthema
  • 314 Downloads

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.

Schlüsselwörter

Krebsfrüherkennung Nachsorge Mammographie Mammaneoplasien Risikoassessement 

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

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.

Keywords

Early detection of cancer Aftercare Mammography Breast neoplasms Risk assessment 

Notes

Mitglieder der Arbeitsgruppe der Stufe-3-Leitlinie Mammakarzinom

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

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

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.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Albert US, Altland H, Duda V (2008) Stufe-3-Leitlinie Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland. Zuckschwerdt, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  2. 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):70–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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):168–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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):76–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):109–114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):2649–2656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hodgson R et al (2016) Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast 27:52–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 47:94–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    IARC, I.A.f.R.o.C. (2016) Breast Cancer Screening. IARC Handbook of Cancer PreventionGoogle Scholar
  12. 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):184–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lauby-Secretan B et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372(24):2353–2358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 15.
    Lühnen J et al (2017) Leitlinie evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsinformation. http://www.leitlinie-gesundheitsinformation.de. Zugegriffen: 17.11.2017Google Scholar
  16. 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):268–278CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miglioretti DL et al (2015) Breast tumor prognostic characteristics and biennial vs annual mammography, age, and menopausal status. JAMA Oncol 1(8):1069–1077CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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):1123–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Müller-Schimpfle M et al (2016) BI-RADS die 5.–Eine Kurzmitteilung aus deutsch-/österreichischer Sicht. Fortschr Röntgenstr 188:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):244–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 9:335CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):286–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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):1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 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):341–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 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):1085–1092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 44:44–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Siu AL (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164(4):279–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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):1882–1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Organization WHO (2014) WHO position paper on mammography screening. World Health Organization, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ute-Susann Albert
    • 1
  • Ingrid Schreer
    • 2
  • Arbeitsgruppe der Stufe-3-Leitlinie Mammarkarzinom
  1. 1.AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagementc/o Philipps-UniversitätMarburgDeutschland
  2. 2.Radiologische Ambulanz HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations