European Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 171–176 | Cite as

Detecting breast cancer: evidence for the significance of the mostly used methods

Clinical Review


Breast cancer (BC) is 10 times as frequent in women as cervical cancer. Mammography has been used as the most accepted modality to screen for BC. Also, breast self-examination (SE) has been promoted. Ultrasound has been evaluated as a supplement to mammography and in women at special risk. Palpation or clinical breast examination is regarded as a useful part of triple test (mammography palpation biopsy) for diagnosis of BC. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been investigated in risk groups and before surgery. The literature is reviewed and the conclusions given. Mammography has a sensitivity of up to 50-90%, dependent on the women’s age, breast tissue, hormonal intake and the presence of prostheses. The benefit of mammography screening for BC concerning survival of BC has been questioned. Ultrasound has a higher sensitivity compared with mammography in younger women, in women with familial risk and in women with mammographically dense breasts. There is no evidence for the benefit of palpation or instruction in SE for the detection of BC. Palpation has never been evaluated in controlled trials. MRI has a much higher sensitivity for BC than mammography but at the expense of more biopsies from benign structures. The introduction of MRI will change the reference for sensitivity. MRI could be the future method for detection of BC if cost and number of false positive cases can be reduced.


Breast cancer Screening Mammography Ultrasound Palpation MRI 


  1. 1.
    Danish Cancer Registry. Sundhedsstyrelsen, Sundhedsstatistik. Nye tal fra Sundhedsstyrelsen 2003 (vol 7)
  2. 2.
    Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summery of the evidence. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC (2001) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews issue 4 (2004). Art. No.: CD001877. Wiley, Chichester, UK. DOI: 10.1002/14651858Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bird R, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC (1992) Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184:179–613Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brekelmans CT, Collette HJ, Collette C, Frascheboud J, de Waard F (1992) Breast cancer after a negative screen: follow-up of women participating in the DOM screening programme. Eur J Cancer 28A:893–895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tange UB, Hirsch FR, Jensen MB, Olsen AH, Blichert-Toft M, Rank FE, Vejborg MM, Mouridsen H, Lynge E (2002) Mammografiscreening i københavns kommune. kliniske konsekvenser efter de første tre screeningsrunder. Ugeskr Laeger 164:1036–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, Key CR, Linver MN (1998) Effect of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209:511–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, Mandelson MT, Taplin SH, Malvin K, Ernster V, Urban N, Cutter G, Rosenberg R, Ballard-Barbash R (2000) Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 133:855–863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M, Cutter G, Ballard-Barbash R (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    White E, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Kerlikowske K, Saba L, Vacek PM, Carney PA, Buist DS, Oestreicher N, Barlow W, Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH (2004) Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1832–1839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mandelson M, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Colacurci N, Fornaro F, de Franciscis P, Mele D, Palermo M, del Vecchio W (2001) Effects of a short-term suspension of hormone replacement therapy on mamografic density. Fertil Steril 76:451–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lundström E, Christow A, Kersemaekers W, Svane G, Azavedo E, Söderqvist G, Mol-Arts M, Barkfeldt J, von Schoultz B (2002) Effects of tibolone and continuous combined hormone replacement therapy on mammographic breast density. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:717–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valdivia I, Ortega D (2000) Mammographic density in postmenopausal women treated with tibolone, estradiol or conventional hormone replacement therapy. Clin Drug Investig 20:101–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kavanagh AM, Mitchell H, Giles GG (2000) Hormone replacement therapy and accuracy of mammographic screening. Lancet 22:270–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Cutter G, Barlow WE, Rosenberg R, Weaver DL, Taplin SH, Ballard-Barbash R, Carney PA, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K (2004) Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA 291:442–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Law J (1997) Cancers detected and induced in mammographic screening: new screening schedules and younger women with family history. Br J Radiol 70:62–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beemsterboer PM, Warmerdam PG, Boer R, de Koning HJ (1998) Radiation risk of mammography related to benefit in screening programmes: a favourable balance? J Med Screen 5:81–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaplan SS (2001) Clinical utility of bilateral wholebreast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221:641–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:177–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE (1999) Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 213:413–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Benson SR, Blue J, Judd K, Harman JE (2004) Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of breast cancer. Am J Surg 188:381–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hou MF, Chuang HY, OU-Yang F, Wang CA, Huang CL, Fan HM, Chuang CH, Wang JY, Hsieh JS, Liu GC, Huang TJ (2002) Comparison of breast mammography, sonography and physical examination for screening women at highrisk of breast cancer in Taiwan. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:415–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sim LS, Hendriks JH, Fook-Chong SM (2004) Breast ultrasound in women with familial risk of breast cancer. Ann Acad Med Singapore 33:600–626PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292:1317–1325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Hylton N, Kuhl CK, Lehman C, Pisano ED, Causer P, Schnitt SJ, Smazal SF, Stelling CB, Weatherall PT, Schnall MD (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 292:2779–8029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, Manoliu RA, Kok T, Petersen H, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Muller SH, Meijer S, Oosterwijk JC, Beex LV, Tollenaar RA, de Koning HJ, Rutgers EJ, Klijn JG (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40–49 years. CMAJ 147:1459–1476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50–59 years. CMAJ 147:1477–1488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C (2000) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50–59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1490–1499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bobo JK, Lee NC, Thames SF (2000) Findings from 752,081 clinical breast examinations reported to a national screening program from 1995 through 1998. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:971–976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Irwig L, Macaskill P, Houssami N (2003) Evidence relevant to the investigation of breast symptoms: the triple test. Breast 11:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kösters JP, Gøtzsche PC (2003) Regular self-examination or clinical examination for early detection of breast cancer. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews issue 2. Art. No.: CD003373. Wiley, Chichester, UK. DOI: 10.1002/14651858Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Semiglazov VF, Moiseyenko VM, Bavli JL, Migmanova NS, Seleznyov NK, Popova RT, Ivanova OA, Orlov AA, Chagunava OA, Barash NJ, Matitzin AN, Dyatchenko OT, Kozhevnikov SY, Alexandrova GL, Sanchakova AV, Musayev BT (1992) The role of breast self-examination in early breast cancer detection (results of the 5-years USSR/WHO randomised study in Leningrad). Eur J Epidemiol 8:498–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thomas DB, Gao DL, Self SG, Allison CJ, Tao Y, Mahloch J, Ray R, Qin Q, Presley R, Porter P (1997) Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: methodology and preliminary results. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:355–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, Wang WW, Allison CJ, Chen FL, Porter P, Hu YW, Zhao GL, Pan LD, Li W, Wu C, Coriaty Z, Evans I, Lin MG, Stalsberg H, Self SG (2002) Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1445–1457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ellman R, Moss SM, Coleman D, Chamberlain J (1993) Breast self-examination programmes in the trial of early detection of breast cancer: ten years findings. Br J Cancer 68:208–212PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyHerlev University HospitalHerlevDenmark

Personalised recommendations