Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Do I Screen Patients for Breast Cancer?

  • Breast Cancer (CI Falkson, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Breast cancer is a complex, heterogeneous disease. Approximately 230,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States each year and approximately 40,000 women die each year with breast cancer. Although prevention of the disease would be preferred, no real prospects are available in the near future that would be applicable to the majority of women who are at risk for breast cancer. Early detection remains an effective way to decrease mortality from breast cancer, treating it at an early stage when it is likely curable. Unfortunately, screening does have its limitations. Not all breast cancers can be identified with routine screening. Some breast cancers despite early detection still result in poor outcomes. Furthermore, false-positive results are not infrequently seen in women undergoing screening mammography. Most patients experience significant anxiety when called back for additional studies or a biopsy. Not to mention the additional cost and potential side effects and complications of invasive procedures. In addition, there are breast cancers that may be indolent and otherwise not a threat to patients. In fact, some studies show that up to one quarter of cancers detected by screening may represent overdiagnosis. Currently, however, there are no proven methods to discern with complete certainty the cancers that would progress to lethal disease from those that would not. Women should be counseled regarding the risks and benefits of screening. Women at average risk should initiate screening mammography annually at the age of 40 years. Women at significant increased risk for breast cancer should be screened earlier. MRI has been shown to increase detection of breast cancer in women at increased risk and should be used as an adjunct to mammography in this high-risk patient population.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References and Recommended Reading

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

  1. Dodd GD. American Cancer Society guidelines from the past to the present. Cancer. 1993;72:1429–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2009;7:1060–96.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:1–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gromet M. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:854–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Taylor P, Potts HW. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:798–807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. United States Food and Drug Administration: Document Archives (MQSA) December 2011 Scrorecard. 2011.

  8. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology. 2005;236:404–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246:376–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727–37. W237-42. USPSTF guidelines for breast cancer screening.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, et al. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:305–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 212Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368:2053–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Ravesteyn NT, Miglioretti DL, Mandleblatt JS. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:597–8. Outlines risk factors that may warrant intiating screening in women at the age of 40.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nelson HD, Zakher B, Cantor A, et al. Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:635–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. American Cancer Society, Inc: Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2011-2012. Atlanta, Georgia. 2011.

  17. Michael Alvarado M, Elissa Ozanne, PhD, and Laura Esserman, MD, MBA: Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Breast Cancer. ASCO Educational Book 2012. 2012.

  18. Zahl PH, Maehlen J, Welch HG. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:2311–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results: SEER Stat Fact Sheet: Breast. In: Institute NC (ed). 2012.

  20. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: 1 in 4 cancers detected by mammography are pseudocancers. BMJ. 2006;332:727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Law J, Faulkner K, Young KC. Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:261–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Barton MB, Harris R, Fletcher SW. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How? JAMA. 1999;282:1270–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Version1.2012. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, 2012.National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for breast cancer screening.

  24. Le-Petross HT, Whitman GJ, Atchley DP, et al. Effectiveness of alternating mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for screening women with deleterious BRCA mutations at high risk of breast cancer. Cancer. 2011;117:3900–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:619–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292:1317–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1095–102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8469–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:427–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2005;103:1898–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007;244:381–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet. 2005;365:1769–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Passaperuma K, Warner E, Causer PA, et al. Long-term results of screening with magnetic resonance imaging in women with BRCA mutations. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:24–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Houssami N, Abraham LA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;305:790–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lu WL, Jansen L, Post WJ, et al. Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114:403–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. American Cancer Society, Inc: American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer. Atlanta, Georgia. 2012.

  37. Devon RK, Rosen MA, Mies C, et al. Breast reconstruction with a transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap: spectrum of normal and abnormal MR imaging findings. Radiographics. 2004;24:1287–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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. JAMA. 2008;299:2151–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. National Cancer Institute: Breast Cancer Screening (PDQ®).

Download references

Disclosures

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1922 7th Avenue South KB 321, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Helen Krontiras MD & Rachel Bramlett MD

  2. Department of Radiology, Section of Breast Imaging, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 619 19th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Heidi Umphrey MD

Authors
  1. Helen Krontiras MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Bramlett MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heidi Umphrey MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Krontiras MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krontiras, H., Bramlett, R. & Umphrey, H. How Do I Screen Patients for Breast Cancer?. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 14, 88–96 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-012-0218-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-012-0218-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation