Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic assessment of nonpalpable breast cancer-the difference in diagnostic approach for the clinical treatment of breast cancer between the japanese guidelines and the national comprehensive cancer network (USA) guidelines

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The detection of non-palpating breast cancer might improve the survival of patients with whole breast cancer because it can be diagnosed at an early stage. Therefore, to standardize the quality of patient care, a published assessment guideline is necessary in a clinical setting. For this purpose, Japan and USA have independent guidelines with different approaches. “The evidence-based guideline for clinical treatment of breast cancer” that was published in June 2005 by the Japanese breast cancer society, is the first set of integrated guidelines pertaining to breast cancer in Japan. These guidelines are presented in the research questions (RQ) format. This paper explains 7 RQs (out of 31 RQs) and also discusses the recommenda-tions pertaining to the diagnosis of nonpalpable breast cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Net-work (NCCN; USA) guidelines, which are widely recognized as one of the most reliable guidelines based on published evidences, also contain the diagnostic assessment of asymptomatic patients with a negative physical examination. This paper discusses pros and cons of each of the abovementioned guidelines as well as their clinical application. It is necessary to use both the Japanese and NCCN guidelines while understanding the differences between the two.

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. In the Japanese breast cancer society eds, The evidence-based guideline for clinical treatment of breast cancer. 1st ed, Kaneharasyuppan Tokyo, 2005.

  2. Breast screening in National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Practice guidelines in Oncology V.1.2001 www.nccn.org

  3. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R: Tento fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality.J Natl Cancer Inst 69:349–355, 1982.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Grontoft O,et al: Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.Lancet 1:829–832, 1985.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F.t Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial.BMJ 297:943–948,1988.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M, Ryden S: Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography: Overview of Swedish Randomized Trials.Lancet 341:973–978, 1993.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Chetty U, Donnan PT, Forrest P: Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years.Lancet 335:241–246, 1990.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C: Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years.J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1490–1499, 2000.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, Forrest AP, Hepburn W, Kirkpatrick AE,et al: 14 Years of followup from Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening.Lancet 353:1903–1908, 1999.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Warwick J, Tabar L, Vitak B, Duffy SW: Time-dependent effects on survival in breast carcinoma: results of 20 years of follow-up from the Swedish Two-County Study.Cancer 100:1331–1336, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jonsson H, Nystrom L, Tornberg S, Lundgren B, Lenner P: Service screening with mammography. Long-term effects on breast cancer mortality in the county of Gavleborg, Sweden.Breast 12:183–193, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, Smith TC, Cahlin E, Eriksson O: The Gothenburg breast screening tri- al: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization.Cancer 80:2091–2099, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Larsson LG, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, Tabar L: Updated overview of the Swedish Randomized Trials on Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography: age group 40-49 at randomization.J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:57–61, 1997.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, 3rd, Smart CR: Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:87–92, 1997.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH, 3rd, Smith RA Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials.Cancer 75:1619–1626, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL: Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.JAMA 273:149–154, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJG, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Grontoft O,et al: Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomized trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.Lancet 1:829–832, 1985.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hindle WH, Davis L, Wright D: Clinical value of mammography for symptomatic women 35 years of age and younger.Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:1484–1490, 1999.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Harris VJ, Jackson VP: Indications for breast imaging in women under age 35 years.Radiology 172:445–448, 1989.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Brand IR, Sapherson DA, Brown TS: Breast imaging in women under 35 with symptomatic breast disease.Br J Radiol 66:394–397, 1993.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bassett LW, Ysrael M, Gold RH, Ysrael C: Usefulness of mammography and sonography in women less than 35 years of age.Radiology 180:831–835,1991.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lesnick GJ: Detection of breast cancer in young women.JAMA 237:967–969,1977.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jeffries DO, Adler DD: Mammographie detection of breast cancer in women under the age of 35.Invest Radiol 25:67–71, 1990.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Shaw de Paredes E, Marsteller LP, Eden BV: Breast cancers in women 35 years of age and younger: mammographie findings.Radiology 177:117–119, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Meyer JE, Kopans DB, Oot R: Breast cancer visualized by mammography in patients under 35.Radiology 147:93–94, 1983.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Iwase. T, Sarumaru S, Tsunoda N, Mizutani M, Iwata K, Miura S: Comparison of findings on diagnostic mammograms in women aged 40-49 with those in women aged 50 or over.J Jpn Assoc Breast Screen 11:155–160, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Perre CI, Koot VC, de Hooge P, Leguit P: The value of ultrasound in the evaluation of palpable breast tumours: a prospective study of 400 cases.Eur J Surg Oncol 20:637–640, 1994.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cox BA, Kelly KM, Ko P, Hertzog L, Stain SC: Ultrasound characteristics of breast carcinoma.Am Surg 64:934–938, 1998.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M: Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup.Am J Roentgenol 173:921–927, 1999.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US-diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics.Radiology 207:191–199, 1998.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kaplan SS: Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue.Radiology 221:641–649, 2001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M: Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography.Semin Ultrasound CT MR 21:325–336, 2000.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berliere M, Berg BV, D’Hoore W,et al: Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density.AJR AM J Roentgenol 180:1675–1679, 2003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL: Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review.Cancer 76:626–630, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Foxcroft LM, Evans EB, Joshua HK, Hirst C: Breast cancers invisible on mammography.Aust NZJ Surg 70:162–167, 2000.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Heikkinen P, Hyvarinen S, Isola J: The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultrasonography.Breast Cancer Res Treat 67:117–123, 2001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lofgren M, Andersson I, Bondeson L, Lindholm K: X- ray guided fine-needle aspiration for the cytologic diagnosis of nonpalpable breast lesions.Cancer 61:1032–1037, 1988.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Svane G, Silfversward C: Stereotaxic needle biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions. Cytologic and histopathologic findings.Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 24:283–288, 1983.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Masood S: Fine needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. In: Cytopathology Annual 1993, Schmidt W (Ed), Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore 33- 65, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Layfield LJ, Glasgow BJ, Cramer H: Fine-needl aspiration in the management of breast masses.Pathol Annu 24:23–62, 1989.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Nakayama K, Abe R, Kimijima I: Evaluation of aspiration biopsy cytology and combined preoperative tests in the diagnosis of breast cancer.Surgery Today 25:404–408, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Westenend PJ, Sever AR, Beekman-De Voider HJ, Liem SJ: A comparison of aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in the evaluation of breast lesions.Cancer 93:146–150, 2001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hatada T, Ishii H, Ichii S, Okada K, Fujiwara Y, Yamamura T: Diagnostic value of ultrasound-guided fineneedle aspiration biopsy, core-needle biopsy, and evaluation of combined use in the diagnosis of breast lesions.J Am Coll Surg 190:299–303, 2000.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ibrahim AE, Bateman AC, Theaker JM, Low JL, Addis B, Tidbury P: The role and histological classification of needle core biopsy in comparison with fine needle aspiration cytology in the preoperative assessment of impalpable breast lesions.J Clin Pathol 54:121–125, 2001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Sun W, Li A, Abreo F, Turbat-Herrera E, Grafton WD: Comparison of fine-needle aspiration cytology and core biopsy for diagnosis of breast cancer.Diagn Cytopathol 24:421–425, 2001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St Luke’s International Hospital Department of Radiology, 9-1 Akashi-cho Chuo-ku, 104-8560, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroko Tsunoda-Shimizu

  2. Breast Surgical Oncology, Japan

    Seigo Nakamura

Authors
  1. Hiroko Tsunoda-Shimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seigo Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Tsunoda-Shimizu, H., Nakamura, S. Diagnostic assessment of nonpalpable breast cancer-the difference in diagnostic approach for the clinical treatment of breast cancer between the japanese guidelines and the national comprehensive cancer network (USA) guidelines. Breast Cancer 12, 250–257 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2325/jbcs.12.250

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2325/jbcs.12.250

Keywords

Search

Navigation