The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition

A Correction to this article was published on 19 May 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

This article updates readers as to what is new in the Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition. Breast cancer screening issues are covered, including matters of breast density and possible supplemental modalities, along with appropriate pre-operative/follow-up diagnostic breast imaging tests. Up-to-date clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis should help to provide patients and clinicians with not only evidence-based breast imaging options, but also accurate and balanced information about the benefits and harms of intervention, which ultimately enables shared decision making about imaging test plans.

Introduction

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition provide consensus statement from groups (a guideline forming committee, a panel of experts, including breast cancer survivors, who rated statements according to the modified Delphi method; and, an evaluating committee) about their views on currently accepted approaches to breast cancer screening and diagnosis. The practice guidelines stress the importance of asking women who have no signs or symptoms of breast cancer and patients to share the decision-making process regarding all aspects of breast cancer screening and diagnosis. This article summarizes the practice guidelines, including eight clinical questions and one background question, supported by recommendations and evidence, along with the weight of consensus among the expert panelists and supporting references.

Practice guidelines for breast cancer screening

CQ1. Is handheld ultrasound recommended as an adjunct to population-based breast cancer screening mammography for women with dense breasts?

Recommendation

We advise against using handheld ultrasound as an adjunct to population-based breast cancer screening mammography for women with dense breasts. [Strength of Recommendation (SoR), 3; Strength of Evidence (SoE), moderate].

Justification

The objective of the Japan Strategic Anti-Cancer Randomized Trial (J-START), which is the world’s first large-scale randomized controlled trial of supplemental ultrasound population-based breast screening, is to investigate the efficacy of adding ultrasound to screening mammography in 72,998 healthy Japanese women in their 40s [1]. The results, therefore, can be generalized to women with dense breasts. Preliminary results from the J-START show that sensitivity is significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group, whereas the specificity is significantly lower. Furthermore, more small invasive cancers were detected in the intervention group than in the control group and were more frequently at stages 0 and 1. Also, there was a reduction in interval cancers. However, breast cancer mortality rate reduction is the most important parameter that can be used to evaluate the efficacy of breast screening and no studies, including the J-START, have shown this. In addition, the low specificity of the intervention group reflects its high recall rate in the J-START. Consequently, the benefits [1, 2] of handheld ultrasound as an adjunct to population-based breast cancer screening mammography for women with dense breasts cannot outweigh the harm [3,4,5,6].

CQ2. Is breast tomosynthesis recommended as an adjunct to population-based breast cancer screening mammography for women with dense breasts?

Recommendation

We advise against using breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to population-based breast cancer screening mammography for women with dense breasts [SoR, 3; SoE, very weak].

Justification

Breast tomosynthesis is a pseudo-three-dimensional digital mammography imaging system that produces a series of 1-mm-slice images using multiple, very low-dose X-ray projections to reveal the inner architecture of the breast after eliminating interference from overlapping breast tissue. There is evidence that it improves cancer detection and decreases the recall rate in some studies [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. However, no studies have shown that it reduces breast cancer mortality rates. Additionally, there has been no randomized controlled trial of supplemental breast tomosynthesis population-based breast screening. In the case of extremely dense breasts, some cancers remain difficult to identify by breast tomosynthesis [18]. A few studies have reported that breast tomosynthesis may be cost-effective for women with dense breasts [19, 20].

CQ3. Is an automated whole-breast scanning sonography system recommended as an adjunct to population-based breast cancer screening mammography for women with dense breasts?

Recommendation

We advise against using automated whole-breast scanning sonography system as an adjunct to population-based breast cancer screening mammography for women with dense breasts [SoR, 3; SoE, very weak].

Justification

Automated whole-breast scanning sonography involves automated ultrasound technology for whole-breast imaging with safe, painless, radiation-free, and non-invasive three-dimensional ultrasound [21]. Evidence from four studies [22,23,24,25] suggested that adding automated whole-breast scanning sonography to mammography results in highly sensitive cancer detection capabilities with a high recall rate. However, no studies have shown that this reduces the breast cancer mortality rate. In addition, there has been no randomized controlled trial of supplemental automated whole-breast scanning sonography in population-based breast screening.

CQ4. Is contrast-enhanced breast MRI screening as an adjunct to mammography recommended for Japanese BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers?

Recommendation

We advise using contrast-enhanced breast MRI screening as an adjunct to mammography for Japanese BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers [SoR, 2; SoE, weak].

Justification

The BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have a 6–12 times higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer compared to non-carriers [26]. In the USA and Europe, contrast-enhanced breast MRI screening as an adjunct to mammography for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has been established [27]. Intensive combined breast cancer screening with annual MRI and mammography has been shown to improve survival rates for BRCA2 mutation carriers [28]. Data from two prospective studies in which asymptomatic women who undertook a mammography alone or with MRI, compared with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with no intensive surveillance, showed that there were no differences in 10-year survival rates between the MRI + mammography and mammography-only groups, but survival was significantly higher in the MRI screened group compared to no intensive screening [29]. Consistent evidence from seven studies [30,31,32,33,34,35,36] demonstrated that sensitivity was significantly higher in the MRI screened group compared to the mammography-only group. The most important reason for this is that MRI is not affected by breast density and BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are associated with a diagnosis of breast cancer at a young age, resulting in dense breasts. Additional screening sensitivity from mammography, over that obtained by MRI, is limited in BRCA1 mutation carriers, whereas mammography contributes to increased screening sensitivity in BRCA2 mutation carriers, especially those ≤ 40 years-of-age [37]. It may be reasonable to consider potential omission of mammography screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers. However, there are a few potential adverse events to consider before using contrast-enhanced breast MRI screening [38, 39]. In conclusion, the efficacy of risk-based breast cancer screening practices, such as MRI, for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers shows promise in terms of increased cancer detection rates and decreased mortality.

Practice guidelines for breast cancer diagnosis

CQ5. Is breast elastography as an adjunct to B-mode ultrasound recommended in a diagnostic setting?

Recommendation

We advise using breast elastography as an adjunct to B-mode ultrasound recommended in a diagnostic setting [SoR, 2; SoE, weak].

Justification

Consistent evidence from 10 studies [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49] demonstrated that addition of elastography to B-mode ultrasound can increase the negative predictive value of diagnostic breast ultrasound in women, while reducing the number of false-positive findings without missing cancers. Breast elastography is expected to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and contribute to an increase in the accuracy of diagnostic breast ultrasound.

CQ6. Is contrast-enhanced breast MRI recommended in a diagnostic setting?

Recommendation

We advise using contrast-enhanced breast MRI in a diagnostic setting [SoR, 2; SoE, weak].

Justification

No evidence was found from 11 studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60], that the addition of MRI to conventional imaging and clinical examination has benefits in reducing the locoregional recurrence. Evidence from eight studies [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68] showed that MRI could provide very valuable information for pre-operative planning and single-stage resection in breast cancer. One meta-analysis study showed that MR imaging of the breast provides high sensitivity (90%) and low specificity (72%) in the evaluation of breast lesions [69]. The prevalence of malignancy among MRI-detected lesions is not negligible with reported rates ranging between 52% and 66% [70,71,72,73]. Three studies [52, 55, 57] reported that there was no statistically significant effect of the use of pre-operative MRI on rates of contralateral recurrence or disease-free survival. However, another three studies [51, 58, 74] demonstrated that there was a statistically significant effect of the use of pre-operative MRI on rates of contralateral recurrence or disease-free survival. As a special circumstance in Japan, Japan universal health insurance covers contrast-enhanced breast MRI in a diagnostic setting and MRI is, therefore, widely used in this country. In light of the above, contrast-enhanced breast MRI can be recommended in a diagnostic setting under the quality assurance and quality control recommendations of Japan.

CQ7. Is intensive staging imaging including CT, PET, and PET-CT recommended to detect asymptomatic distant metastases for women with stage 1 and 2 breast cancers?

Recommendation

We advise against using intensive staging imaging, including CT, PET, and PET-CT, to detect asymptomatic distant metastases for women with stage 1 and 2 breast cancers [SoR, 3; SoE, very weak].

Justification

A low prevalence of distant metastases was seen in stage 1 and 2 breast cancers and the prognostic effect of using intensive staging imaging was far from clear [75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. The benefit of using intensive staging imaging to avoid unnecessary surgery cannot outweigh the harm, resulting in false-positive findings, further costs, and further radiation exposure. In the future, intensive staging imaging after a new diagnosis of stage 1 and 2 breast cancers may be necessary depending on the subtype classification to avoid over- and under-treatment [83].

CQ8. Is intensive imaging recommended for surveillance and follow-up of patients with stage 1 and 2 breast cancers?

Recommendation

We advise against using intensive imaging for the surveillance and follow-up of patients with stage 1 and 2 breast cancers [SoR, 3–4; SoE, weak].

Justification

The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends against performing surveillance testing (biomarkers) or imaging (PET, CT, and radionuclide bone scans) for asymptomatic individuals who have been treated for breast cancer with curative intent [84]. The European School of Oncology states that early detection of metastatic lesions is not a valuable end point in itself and if intensive surveillance is to be recommended, it must be associated with some direct patient benefit [85]. No evidence was found from 3 studies [86,87,88] that intensive imaging for surveillance and follow-up of patients with stage 1 and 2 breast cancers can improve survival or influence health-related quality of life. A small study reported that the percentage of first relapse cases detected by imaging or tumor markers for stage 1, 2A, and 2B was 4.7, 5.1, and 11.8, respectively [89]. However, considering the progress made in the treatment of metastatic disease and the rapid evolution of targeted therapy that requires customization of the treatment strategy according to molecular characteristics of the disease, patients could derive real benefits from the early detection of disease recurrence [90]. A new study in Japan is being conducted to determine the superiority of intensive follow-up over standard follow-up in terms of overall survival for patients with high-risk breast cancers [91]. Using intensive imaging leads to increased costs and radiation exposure [86, 92, 93].

Practice guidelines for breast cancer diagnosis

BQ1. Is image-guided breast biopsy recommended to use in breast cancer diagnosis instead of open surgical biopsy?

Statement

We recommend that image-guided breast biopsy must generally be used for breast cancer diagnosis instead of open surgical biopsy.

Justification

Consistent evidence from six studies [94,95,96,97,98,99] demonstrated that image-guided breast biopsy is almost as accurate as open surgical biopsy with lower complication rates.

Change history

References

  1. 1.

    Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, et al. J-START investigator groups. 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. 2016;387(10016):341–8. [PMID:26547101]

  2. 2.

    Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ghirardi M, Ferrari A, Speziani M, Bellarosa S, et al. Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(7):1021–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bergonzini R, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med. 2006;111(3):440–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts:initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09–41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(4):539–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):157–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hodgson R, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Harvey SC, Edwards M, Shaikh J, Arber M, et al. Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast. 2016;27:52–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images:comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):655–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2061–71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast. 2014;23(1):76–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading–evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(10):1799–807.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R. Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4:9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2015;274(2):337–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF, Copit DS, Friedewald SM, Plecha DM, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and nondense breasts. JAMA. 2016;315(16):1784–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology. 2015;274(3):772–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kalra VB, Wu X, Haas BM, Forman HP, Philpotts LE. Cost-effectiveness of tomosynthesis in annual screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(5):1152–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH. Current status of automated breast ultrasonography. Version 2. Ultrasonography. 2015;34(3):165–72.

  22. 22.

    Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automate whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):734–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Giuliano V, Giuliano C. Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging. 2013;37(3):480–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Brem RF, Tabar L, Duffy SW, Inciardi MF, Guingrich JA, Hashimoto BE, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology. 2015;274(3):663–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K. Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(9):1554–633.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    The Japanese HBOC Consortium website. https://hboc.jp/downloads/pamphlet_ver4-1.pdf. (in Japanese).

  27. 27.

    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 3. 2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf

  28. 28.

    Evans DG, Harkness EF, Howell A, Wilson M, Hurley E, Holmen MM, et al. Intensive breast screening in BRCA2 mutation carriers is associated with reduced breast cancer specific and all cause mortality. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2016;14:8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Evans DG, Kesavan N, Lim Y, Gadde S, Hurley E, Massat NJ, et al. MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(3):663–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, Beex L, Bult P, Hendriks JH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(14):1095–102.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, Catzavelos GC, Di Prospero LS, Yaffe MJ, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(15):3524–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al;Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(5):427–37.

  33. 33.

    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292(11):1317–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Boetes C, Loo CE, et al. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC screening study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(36):5265–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Trop I, Lalonde L, Mayrand MH, David J, Larouche N, Provencher D. Multimodality breast cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Curr Oncol. 2010;17(3):28–36.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, Arand B, Bieling H, Konig R, 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Phi XA, Saadatmand S, De Bock GH, Warner E, Sardanelli F, Leach MO, et al. Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(6):631–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Tsushima Y, Ishiguchi T, Murakami T, Hayashi H, Hayakawa K, Fukuda K, et al. Safe use of iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast media in current practice in Japan: a questionnaire survey. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34(2):130–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology. 2014;270(3):834–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Liu B, Zheng Y, Huang G, Lin M, Shan Q, Lu Y, et al. Quantitative diagnosis using ultrasound shear wave elastography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(4):835–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Liu B, Zheng Y, Shan Q, Lu Y, Lin M, Tian W, et al. Elastography by acoustic radiation force impulse technology for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions:a meta-analysis. J Med Ultrason(2001). 2016;43(1):47–55.

  42. 42.

    Chen L, He J, Liu G, Shao K, Zhou M, Li B, et al. Diagnostic performances of shear-wave elastography for identification of malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Jpn J Radiol. 2014;32(10):592–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Dwamena BA. Accuracy of quantitative ultrasound elastography for differentiation of malignant and benign breast abnormalities: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(3):923–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Dwamena BA. Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: a meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):23–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Li G, Li DW, Fang YX, Song YJ, Deng ZJ, Gao J, et al. Performance of shear wave elastography for differentiation of benign and malignant solid breast masses. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e76322.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Wojcinski S, Dwamena BA. Impact of breast mass size on accuracy of ultrasound elastography vs. conventional B-mode ultrasound:a meta-analysis of individual participants. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(4):1006–14.

  47. 47.

    Gong X, Xu Q, Xu Z, Xiong P, Yan W, Chen Y. Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions:a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130(1):11–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Lee SH, Chung J, Choi HY, Choi SH, Ryu EB, Ko KH, et al. Evaluation of screening US-detected breast masses by combined use of elastography and color doppler US with B-mode US in women with dense breasts: a multicenter prospective study. Radiology. 2017;285(2):660–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Nakashima K, Mizutou A, Sakurai S. Auto strain ratio system for the quality control of breast strain elastography. J Med Ultrason(2001). 2018; 45(2): 261‒8.

  50. 50.

    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Fischer U, Zachariae O, Baum F, von Heyden D, Funke M, Liersch T. The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(10):1725–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(3):386–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Hwang N, Schiller DE, Crystal P, Maki E, McCready DR. Magnetic resonance imaging in the planning of initial lumpectomy for invasive breast carcinoma: its effect on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conservation therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(11):3000–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Miller BT, Abbott AM, Tuttle TM. The influence of preoperative MRI on breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):536–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ko ES, Han BK, Kim RB, Ko EY, Shin JH, Nam SY, et al. Analysis of the effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the outcome in women undergoing breast conservation surgery with radiation therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107(8):815–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Houssami N, Turner R, Macaskill P, Turnbull LW, McCready DR, Tuttle TM, et al. An individual person data meta-analysis of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(5):392–401.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Sung JS, Li J, Da Costa G, Patil S, Van Zee KJ, Dershaw DD, et al. Preoperative breast MRI for early-stage breast cancer: effect on surgical and long-term outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):1376–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Yi A, Cho N, Yang KS, Han W, Noh DY, Moon WK. Breast cancer recurrence in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer without and with preoperative MR imaging: a matched cohort study. Radiology. 2015;276(3):695–705.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Ryu J, Park HS, Kim S, Kim JY, Park S, Kim SI. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and survival outcomes in T1–2 breast cancer patients who receive breast-conserving therapy. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(4):423–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Gervais MK, Maki E, Schiller DE, Crystal P, McCready DR. Preoperative MRI of the breast and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: long-term follow up. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115(3):231–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995;197(3):743–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):110–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Amano G, Ohuchi N, Ishibashi T, Ishida T, Amari M, Satomi S. Correlation of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with precise histopathological map concerning carcinoma extension in the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;60(1):43–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2005;11(6):382–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Schouten van der Velden AP, Boetes C, Bult P, Wobbes T. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and size assessment of in situ and small invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2006;192(2):172–8.

  66. 66.

    Santamaria G, Velasco M, Farrus B, Zanon G, Fernandez PL. Preoperative MRI of pure intraductal breast carcinoma–a valuable adjunct to mammography in assessing cancer extent. Breast. 2008;17(2):186–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;112(3):461–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Nori J, Meattini I, Giannotti E, Abdulcadir D, Mariscotti G, Calabrese M, et al. Role of preoperative breast MRI in ductal carcinoma in situ for prediction of the presence and assessment of the extent of occult invasive component. Breast J. 2014;20(3):243–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology. 2008;246(1):116–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Yabuuchi H, Kuroiwa T, Kusumoto C, Fukuya T, Ohno S, Hachitanda Y. Incidentally detected lesions on contrast-enhanced MR imaging in candidates for breast-conserving therapy: correlation between MR findings and histological diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;23(4):486–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Tozaki M, Yamashiro N, Sakamoto M, Sakamoto N, Mizuuchi N, Fukuma E. Magnetic resonance-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results in 100 Japanese women. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28(7):527–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Nakano S, Kousaka J, Fujii K, Yorozuya K, Yoshida M, Mouri Y, et al. Impact of real-time virtual sonography, a coordinated sonography and MRI system that uses an image fusion technique, on the sonographic evaluation of MRI-detected lesions of the breast in second-look sonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(3):1179–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Uematsu T, Takahashi K, Nishimura S, Watanabe J, Yamasaki S, Sugino T, et al. Real-time virtual sonography examination and biopsy for suspicious breast lesions identified on MRI alone. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(4):1064–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Kim JY, Cho N, Koo HR, Yi A, Kim WH, Lee SH, et al. Unilateral breast cancer:screening of contralateral breast by using preoperative MR imaging reduces incidence of metachronous cancer. Radiology. 2013;267(1):57–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Brennan ME, Houssami N. Evaluation of the evidence on staging imaging for detection of asymptomatic distant metastases in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast. 2012;21(2):112–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Cochet A, Dygai-Cochet I, Riedinger JM, Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Toubeau M, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT provides powerful prognostic stratification in the primary staging of large breast cancer when compared with conventional explorations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(3):428–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Guhlmann A, Santjohanser C, Horster T, Nussle K, et al. Fluorine-18 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with the standard staging procedures. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28(3):351–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Groheux D, Moretti JL, Baillet G, Espie M, Giacchetti S, Hindie E, et al. Effect of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with clinical stage II and III breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(3):695–704.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Riegger C, Herrmann J, Nagarajah J, Hecktor J, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, et al. Whole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(5):852–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Jeong YJ, Kang DY, Yoon HJ, Son HJ. Additional value of F-18FDG PET/CT for initial staging in breast cancer with clinically negative axillary nodes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(1):137–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Bernsdorf M, Berthelsen AK, Wielenga VT, Kroman N, Teilum D, Binderup T, et al. Preoperative PET/CT in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(9):2277–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Riedl CC, Slobod E, Jochelson M, Morrow M, Goldman DA, Gonen M, et al. Retrospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients younger than 40 years. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(10):1578–83.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Chen X, Sun L, Cong Y, Zhang T, Lin Q, Meng Q, et al. Baseline staging tests based on molecular subtype is necessary for newly diagnosed breast cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2014;33:28.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Schnipper LE, Smith TJ, Raghavan D, Blayney DW, Ganz PA, Mulvey TM, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(14):1715–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Lin NU, Thomssen C, Cardoso F, Cameron D, Cufer T, Fallowfield L, et al;European School of Oncology-Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force. International guidelines for management of metastatic breast cancer(MBC)from the European School of Oncology(ESO)-MBC Task Force:Surveillance, staging, and evaluation of patients with early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Breast. 2013;22(3):203–10.

  86. 86.

    Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. The GIVIO Investigators. JAMA. 1994;271(20):1587–92.

  87. 87.

    Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA. 1994;271(20):1593–7.

  88. 88.

    Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C, Ciatto S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Distante V, et al. Intensive vs clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer:10-year update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer Follow-up. JAMA. 1999;281(17):1586.

  89. 89.

    Ogawa Y, Ikeda K, Izumi T, Okuma S, Ichiki M, Ikeya T, et al. First indicators of relapse in breast cancer: evaluation of the follow-up program at our hospital. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18(3):447–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Puglisi F, Fontanella C, Numico G, Sini V, Evangelista L, Monetti F, et al. Follow-up of patients with early breast cancer: is it time to rewrite the story? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2014;91(2):130–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Hojo T, Masuda N, Mizutani T, Shibata T, Kinoshita T, Tamura K, et al. Intensive vs. Standard Post-Operative Surveillance in High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients(INSPIRE):Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1204. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(10):983–6.

  92. 92.

    Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays:estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363(9406):345–51.

  93. 93.

    Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078–86.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Chun K, Velanovich V. Patient-perceived cosmesis and satisfaction after breast biopsy: comparison of stereotactic incisional, excisional, and wire-localized biopsy techniques. Surgery. 2002;131(5):497–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Sabel MS. Breast conserving therapy. UpToDate. 2017. https://www.uptodate.com/ontents/breast-conserving-therapy#H30

  96. 96.

    Estourgie SH, Valdés Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, Hoefnagel CA, Rutgers EJ, et al. Excision biopsy of breast lesions changes the pattern of lymphatic drainage. Br J Surg. 2007;94(9):1088–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core needle and open surgical biopsy for diagnosis of breast lesions:an update to the 2009 report. Rockville(MD):Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(US);2014

  98. 98.

    Bruening W, Schoelles K, Treadwell J, Launders J, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K. Comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy for the diagnosis of breast lesions. Rockville(MD):Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(US);2009.

  99. 99.

    Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K, Treadwell JR, Launders J, Schoelles K. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(4):238–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Subcommittee would like to thank all Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee members, experts who co-operate us, and other committees (an expert panel including representative breast cancer survivors, for rating statements, and the evaluating committee).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayoshi Uematsu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Uematsu has nothing to disclose. Dr. Nakashima has nothing to disclose. Dr. Kikuchi has nothing to disclose. Dr. Kubota has nothing to disclose. Dr. Suzuki has nothing to disclose. Dr. Nakano has nothing to disclose. Dr. Hirokaga has nothing to disclose. Dr. YAMAGUCHI has nothing to disclose. Dr. Saji reports grants and personal fees (honoraria for lectures) from Eisai, grants and personal fees from Chugai, grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Taiho, personal fees from Kyowahakko Kirin, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Nihon Kayaku, grants from Ono. Dr. Iwata reports grants and personal fees from Chugai, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants from MSD, grants and personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Kyowa Hakko Kirin, personal fees from Pfizer, during the conduct of the study. However, Dr. Iwata confirms that total fee from each company is not over the limited fee determined by JBCS.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

The original online version of this article was revised due to retrospective open access order.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uematsu, T., Nakashima, K., Kikuchi, M. et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition. Breast Cancer 27, 17–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-01025-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Japanese breast cancer society
  • Clinical practice guidelines
  • Breast cancer screening
  • Breast cancer diagnosis