Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The need for supplemental breast cancer screening modalities: a perspective of population-based breast cancer screening programs in Japan

  • Special Feature
  • Possible supplemental breast cancer screening modalities
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This article discusses possible supplemental breast cancer screening modalities for younger women with dense breasts from a perspective of population-based breast cancer screening program in Japan.

Conclusion

Supplemental breast cancer screening modalities have been proposed to increase the sensitivity and detection rates of early stage breast cancer in women with dense breasts; however, there are no global guidelines that recommend the use of supplemental breast cancer screening modalities in such women. Also, no criterion standard exists for breast density assessment. Based on the current situation of breast imaging in Japan, the possible supplemental breast cancer screening modalities are ultrasonography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and breast magnetic resonance imaging. An appropriate population-based breast cancer screening program based on the balance between cost and benefit should be a high priority. Further research based on evidence-based medicine is encouraged. It is very important that the ethnicity, workforce, workflow, and resources for breast cancer screening in each country should be considered when considering supplemental breast cancer screening modalities for women with dense breasts.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cady B, Chung M. Mammographic screening: no longer controversial. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005;28:1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Suzuki A, Kuriyama S, Kawai M, Amari M, Takeda M, Ishida T, et al. Age-specific interval breast cancers in Japan: estimation of the proper sensitivity of screening using a population-based cancer registry. Cancer Sci. 2008;99:2264–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nagata C, Matsubara T, Fujita H, Nagao Y, Shibuya C, Kashiki Y, et al. Mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer in Japanese women. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:2102–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Matsuda T, Marugame T, Kamo K, Katanoda K, Ajiki W, Sobue T, Japan Cancer Surveillance Research Group. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in based on data from 15 population-based cancer registries in the monitoring of cancer incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2006;42:139–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. National Cancer Center. Center for Cancer Control and Information Services. Estimation of cancer incidence. http://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/stat/summary.html. Accessed 5 Apr 2015.

  6. Maskarinec G, Nagata C, Shimizu H, Kashiki Y. Comparison of mammographic densities and their determinants in women from Japan and Hawaii. Int J Cancer. 2002;102:29–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan SM, Evans AJ, Lam TP, Cheung KL. How relevant is breast cancer screening in the Asia/Pacific region? Breast. 2007;16:113–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kasahara Y, Kawai M, Tsuji I, Tohno E, Yokoe T, Irahara M, et al. Harms of screening mammography for breast cancer in Japanese women. Breast Cancer. 2013;20:310–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tsuchida J, Nagahashi M, Rashid OM, Takabe K, Wakai T. At what age should screening mammography be recommended for Asian women? Cancer Med. 2015;4:1136–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kopans DB. Breast cancer screening panels continue to confuse the facts and inject their own biases. Curr Oncol. 2015;22:e376–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. National Cancer Center. Center for Cancer Control and Information Services. Estimation of cancer incidence. http://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/stat/screening_p01.html. Accessed 5 Apr 2015.

  12. Leong SP, Shen ZZ, Liu TJ, Agarwal G, Tajima T, Paik NS, et al. Is breast cancer the same disease in Asian and Western countries? World J Surg. 2010;34:2308–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Appleton CM, Berg WA, Burnside ES. ACR BI-RADS–mammography 2013. In: Reston VA, editor. ACR BI-RADS atlas breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics. 2015;35:302–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, et al. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:268–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh AP, Jensen MR, Whaley DH, et al. Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology. 2016;279:710–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:493–502.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, ACRIN 6666 Investigators, 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  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:177–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, J-START investigator groups, et al. 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;387:341–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tohno E, Umemoto T, Sasaki K, Morishima I, Ueno E. Effect of adding screening ultrasonography to screening mammography on patient recall and cancer detection rates: a retrospective study in Japan. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:1227–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Uematsu T. The emerging role of breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2013;20:204–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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;267:47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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;23:2061–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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;311:2499–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cole EB, Pisano ED. Tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening. Clin Imaging. 2016;40:283–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast. 2015;24:93–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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;271:655–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Houssami N, Lång K, Bernardi D, Tagliafico A, Zackrisson S, Skaane P. Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: a pictorial review of screen-detected cancers and false recalls attributed to tomosynthesis in prospective screening trials. Breast. 2016;26:119–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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;112:461–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Berg WA, Blume JD, Adams AM, Jong RA, Barr RG, Lehrer DE, et al. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology. 2010;254:79–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection—a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Conners AL, Tortorelli CL, Maxwell RW, Jones KN, et al. Molecular breast imaging at reduced radiation dose for supplemental screening in mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:241–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yamamoto Y, Tasaki Y, Kuwada Y, Ozawa Y, Inoue T. A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:130–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Berg WA. Nuclear breast imaging: clinical results and future directions. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:46S–52S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Imaging and Breast Intervention Section, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Naga-izumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan

    Takayoshi Uematsu

Authors
  1. Takayoshi Uematsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayoshi Uematsu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Takayoshi Uematsu has no COI.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uematsu, T. The need for supplemental breast cancer screening modalities: a perspective of population-based breast cancer screening programs in Japan. Breast Cancer 24, 26–31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0707-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0707-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation