Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

State of the Art in Imaging and Chemoprevention for High-Risk Patients

  • Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (KK Hunt, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent developments in breast imaging technology and chemoprevention clinical trials have provided promising new options for patients at increased risk of breast cancer. Yet there remains much debate and confusion among providers, patients, and insurers regarding accurate breast cancer risk assessment, appropriate breast cancer screening, and options for breast cancer prevention. We review the most recent literature on these topics in order to provide practicing clinicians with current, practical updates on breast cancer prevention and early detection for women at increased risk of breast cancer.

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

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

  1. Seigel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen WY, Rosner B, Hankinson SE, et al. Moderate alcohol consumption during adult life, drinking patterns, and breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2011;306:1884.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Foulkes WD. Inherited susceptibility to common cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2143–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1993.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Eliassen AH, Colditz GA, Rosner B, et al. Adult weight change and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. JAMA. 2006;296:193.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahn J, Schatzkin A, Lacey Jr JV, et al. Adiposity, adult weight change, and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hsieh CC, Trichopoulos D, Katsouyanni K, et al. Age at menarche, age at menopause, height and obesity as risk factors for breast cancer: associations and interactions in an international case-control study. Int J Cancer. 1990;46:796.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Colditz GA, Rosner B. Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: data from the Nurses’ Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152:950.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Lancet 1997; 350:1047.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rosner B, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Reproductive risk factors in a prospective study of breast cancer: the Nurses’ Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139:819.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Henderson TO, Amsterdam A, Bhatia S, et al. Systematic review: surveillance for breast cancer in women treated with chest radiation for childhood, adolescent, or young adult cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wald NJ, Hackshaw AK, Frost CD. When can a risk factor be used as a worthwhile screening test? BMJ. 1999;319:1562.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, et al. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. • National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. Version 1.2012. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2012. Available at http://www.nccn.org. This set of current clinical guidelines provides thorough and practical considerations for breast cancer risk assessment, screening, and use of chemoprevention. Referenced with permission from The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction V.1.2012. © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc 2013. All rights reserved. Accessed January 14, 2013. To view the most recent and complete version of the guideline, go online to www.nccn.org . NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK®, NCCN®, NCCN Guidelines®, and all other NCCN Content are trademarks owned by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc.

  17. • National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian. Version 1.2012. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2012. Available at http://www.nccn.org. This set of current clinical guidelines provides thorough and practical considerations for breast cancer risk assessment and management for women with a family history of breast cancer. Referenced with permission from The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Genetic/Familial High Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian V.1.2012. © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc 2013. All rights reserved. Accessed January 14, 2013. To view the most recent and complete version of the guideline, go online to www.nccn.org . NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK®, NCCN®, NCCN GUIDELINES®, and all other NCCN Content are trademarks owned by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc.

  18. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23:1111–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J, et al. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:1457–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 1994;73:643.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Couch FJ, DeShano ML, Blackwood MA, et al. BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1409.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Weitzel JN, Blazer KR, MacDonald DJ, et al. Genetics, genomics and cancer risk assessment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:327–59.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1782.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Alberts D, Hess LM. Hereditary risk for cancer. In: Fundamentals of cancer prevention. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2008. p. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, et al. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA. 2010;304:967–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E, et al. Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1027.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, et al. Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:358.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, et al. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wacholder S, Hartge P, Prentice R, et al. Performance of common genetic variants in breast-cancer risk models. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(11):986–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer. 2002;95:458–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge III JH, et al. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:87–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001;91:1724–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen THH, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 Decades. Radiology. 2011;260:658–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. American College of Radiology: ACR Appropriateness Criteria, 2012.

  36. Aisenberg AC, Finkelstein DM, Doppke KP, et al. High risk of breast carcinoma after irradiation of young women with Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer. 1997;79:1203–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. • Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266:104–13. The addition of breast tomosynthesis to 2D mammography may significantly reduce screening recall for non-cancer cases (ranging from 6–67 %). The addition of tomosynthesis may also lead to superior diagnostic accuracy (6.8–7.2 % improvement) and diagnostic sensitivity (10.7–16 %), particularly for detection of invasive carcinomas.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. • Feng S, Sechopoulos I. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology. 2012;263:35–42. Performing 2D mammography and tomosynthesis currently results in the patient receiving a mean glandular dose (MGD) approximately twice that received in routine full field digital mammography (FFDM) alone; 1.2 mGy for FFDM versus 2.5 mGy for tomosynthesis and 2D mammography, using the HologicSelenia Dimensions system. The total dose received by the “average” patient is still below 3 mGy, which is the upper limit of dosage allowance for screening mammography as mandated by the Mammography Quality Standards Act.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Per Skaane, presentation at European Congress of Radiology in March, 2012, in Vienna. Synthetic mammograms: creating a one-armed modality.

  42. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer; what now and what next? Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:390–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. • Brennan S, Liberman L, Dershaw D, et al. Breast MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer. AJR. 2010;195:510–6. A retrospective study of 144 women with a personal history of breast cancer who had undergone screening breast MRIs over a time period ranging from one to 13 years demonstrated that a breast malignancy was detected in 12 % of these patients, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of positive MRI findings of 39 %. Further studies may be helpful to evaluate the benefit of MRI screening in patients with personal history of breast cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. • Friedlander LC, Orel Roth S, Gavenonis SC. Results of MR imaging screening for breast cancer in high risk patients with lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology. 2011;261:421–7. Among 133 patients with previous diagnosis of LCIS who underwent a total of 307 screening MRIs over the course of several years, malignancy was detected in five patients (3.8 % of patients screened), with four cancers detected on the initial screening MRI exam, and one cancer on a third MRI exam. Although the number of patients in this study is relatively small, the findings support the results of an earlier study by Port et al. [46] and suggest that the incidence of malignancy in patients with LCIS may approach that in women at higher risk for whom routine MRI screening is recommended.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. • Sung JS, Malak SF, Bajaj P, et al. Screening breast MR imaging in women with history of lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology. 2011;261:414–20. This study reports a 4.5 % cancer detection rate in women with history of LCIS. In this retrospective study of 220 women screened within a 5 year period, 12 cancers were detected by MRI, seven of which invasive ductal cancers, two were invasive lobular cancers, and three were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, et al. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1051–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lehman CD. Role of MRI in screening women at high risk for breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24:964–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Morris E, Liberman L, Ballon D, et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR. 2003;181:619–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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 

  52. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292:1317–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 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 

  54. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hoogerbrugge N, Kamm YJL, Bult P, et al. The impact of a false-positive MRI on the choice for mastectomy in BRCA mutation carriers is limited. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(4):655–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. • Abramovici G, Mainiero M. Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies. Radiology. 2011;259:85–91. A retrospective study examining 307 baseline MRI screening studies and 343 annual studies with comparisons in women of high and intermediate risk reports the PPV of a BI-RADS category 4 or 5 interpretation to be 11.1 % in baseline screening studies and 18.8 % in screening studies with comparisons, which is lower than the 20–40 % PPV reported by earlier studies that were limited to high-risk patients.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:180–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:290–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. • Berg W, Blume J, Adams, et al. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MRI imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology. 2010;254:79–87. As many as 48 % of MRI examinations performed for intermediate and high-risk patients are not covered or only partially covered by insurance. Furthermore, insurers are even less likely to cover short term follow up exams for probably benign findings.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 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 

  63. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’Agnolo G, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology. 2007;242:698–715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. • Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307:1394–404. Screening ultrasound detects an additional 3.7 cancers per 1000 women per year in patients with dense tissue and elevated risk of breast cancer, with most of these cancers being node negative invasive ductal and invasive lobular cancers. The number of biopsies recommended based on ultrasound findings remained high at 5 % of women screened. This study suggests that screening ultrasound in addition to screening mammography may be valuable for women with dense breast tissue who are at intermediate risk for breast cancer.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. • Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, et al. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265:59–69. In this study, three cancers were detected in 935 women with dense breast tissue utilizing screening ultrasound. Of these women, 9.3 % were at high risk, and 15.9 % were at intermediate risk for breast cancer. One cancer was detected in each risk group. At 3.2 cancers per 1000 women detected, the cancer detection rate approaches that reported by Berg et al. in women with elevated risk of breast cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, et al. Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. JAMA. 2001;286:2251–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Cazzaniga M, Bonanni B. Breast cancer chemoprevention: old and new approaches. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012;2012:985620.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Jordan VC. Selective estrogen receptor modulation: a personal perspective. Cancer Res. 2001;61:5683–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. • Freedman AN, Yu B, Gail MH, et al. Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2327–33. This analysis provides practical risk/benefit tables for use in clinical decision making around SERM breast cancer chemoprevention, stratified by age, ethnicity, and hysterectomy status.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Groups. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet. 1998;351:1451–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. • Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: preventing breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res. 2010;3:696–706. This Phase III randomized trial directly compared tamoxifen and raloxifene, with long-term follow-up data described.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Fallowfield L, Fleissig A, Edwards R, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: psychosocial impact on women participating in two randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1885.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Day R, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, et al. Health-related quality of life and tamoxifen in breast cancer prevention: a report from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2659.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Abramson N, Costantino JP, Garber JE, et al. Effect of Factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210 → A mutations on thromboembolic risk in the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project breast cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:904.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Nelson HD, Fu R, Griffin JC, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of medications to reduce risk for primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Land SR, Wickerman DL, Constantino JP, et al. Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life during treatment with tamoxifen or raloxifene for breast cancer prevention: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2742–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. • Goss PE, Ingle JN, Alés-Martínez JE, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2381. This Phase III randomized clinical trial is the first evidence for efficacy of AIs for breast cancer prevention, showing a 65 % reduction in breast cancer development.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. • Cheung AM, Tile L, Cardew S, et al. Bone density and structure in healthy postmenopausal women treated with exemestane for the primary prevention of breast cancer: a nested substudy of the MAP.3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:275. This analysis highlights bone density loss as a potential significant side effect of exemestane in the prevention setting.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Cuzick J. IBIS II: a breast cancer prevention trial in postmenopausal women using the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2008;8:1377–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Visvanathan K, Chlebowski RT, Hurley P, et al. American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3235.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Kinsinger LS, Harris R, Woolf SH, et al. Chemoprevention of breast cancer: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Coopey SB, Mazzola E, Buckley JM. The role of chemoprevention in modifying the risk of breast cancer in women with atypical breast lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136:627–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Ropka ME, Keim J, Philbrick JT. Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3090–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Sabatino SA, McCarthy EP, Phillips RS, et al. Breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: provider attitudes, practices, and barriers. Cancer Detect Prev. 2007;31:375–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Waters EA, McNeel TS, Stevens WM, et al. Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention in 2010. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134:875–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. • Cuzick J, DeCensi A, Arun B, et al. Preventive therapy for breast cancer: a consensus statement. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:496–503. This summary statement outlines the current status of breast cancer chemoprevention and future areas of research.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

E.W. Hofstatter declares that she has no conflict of interest.

L. Andrejeva declares that she has no conflict of interest.

A.B. Chagpar declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208032, New Haven, CT, 06525, USA

    Erin W. Hofstatter

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208042, New Haven, CT, 06525, USA

    Liva Andrejeva

  3. Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, 20 York Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    Anees B. Chagpar

Authors
  1. Erin W. Hofstatter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liva Andrejeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anees B. Chagpar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin W. Hofstatter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hofstatter, E.W., Andrejeva, L. & Chagpar, A.B. State of the Art in Imaging and Chemoprevention for High-Risk Patients. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 5, 125–133 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-013-0104-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-013-0104-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation