Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Imaging: Screening for New Breast Cancers and for Cancer Recurrence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Common Issues in Breast Cancer Survivors

  • 649 Accesses

Abstract

Breast cancer survivors require a unique breast imaging approach to identify new cancers as well as cancer recurrences. In this patient population, appropriate imaging requires some combination of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging. The appropriate imaging modalities and intervals for imaging depend on many factors, including lifetime risk of malignancy, surgical history, breast density, medical comorbidities, and patient preference, among others. In general, more intensive surveillance imaging is performed in the first 5 years after diagnosis, due to a higher risk of recurrence within that time interval. Patients and providers must also be aware that many normal, treatment-related changes in the breast can be worrisome for breast cancer recurrence on breast imaging, without appropriate diagnostic workup. Because women with a history of breast cancer are living longer, short- and long-term management strategies for breast imaging must be individualized to provide the highest quality care.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Howlander N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2016. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2019. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2016/.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lash TL, Fox MP, Buist DS, Wei F, Field TS, Frost FJ, et al. Mammography surveillance and mortality in older breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3001–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lash TL, Fox MP, Silliman RA. Reduced mortality rate associated with annual mammograms after breast cancer therapy. Breast J. 2006;12(1):2–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schootman M, Jeffe DB, Lian M, Aft R, Gillanders WE. Surveillance mammography and the risk of death among elderly breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111(3):489–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Orel SG, Fowble BL, Solin LJ, Schultz DJ, Conant EF, Troupin RH. Breast cancer recurrence after lumpectomy and radiation therapy for early-stage disease: prognostic significance of detection method. Radiology. 1993;188(1):189–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Houssami N, Abraham LA, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, et al. Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(8):790–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Weinstein SP, Localio AR, Conant EF, Rosen M, Thomas KM, Schnall MD. Multimodality screening of high-risk women: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6124–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lo G, Scaranelo AM, Aboras H, Ghai S, Kulkarni S, Fleming R, et al. Evaluation of the utility of screening mammography for high-risk women undergoing screening breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2017;285(1):36–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Weinstock C, Campassi C, Goloubeva O, Wooten K, Kesmodel S, Bellevance E, et al. Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance in breast cancer survivors. Springerplus. 2015;4:459.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lehman CD, Lee JM, DeMartini WB, Hippe DS, Rendi MH, Kalish G, et al. Screening MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(3):djv349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT, Mann RM, de Roy van Zuidewijn DBW, Zonderland HM, et al. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(8):1136–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cho N, Han W, Han BK, Bae MS, Ko ES, Nam SJ, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography plus ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging in women 50 years or younger at diagnosis and treated with breast conservation therapy. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(11):1495–502.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cummings SR, Tice JA, Bauer S, Browner WS, Cuzick J, Ziv E, et al. Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):384–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Berg WA, Rafferty EA, Friedewald SM, Hruska CB, Rahbar H. Screening algorithms in dense breasts: AJR expert panel narrative review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(2):275–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Peeters PHM, Monninkhof EM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(22):2091–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuhl CK, Strobel K, Bieling H, Leutner C, Schild HH, Schrading S. Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2017;283(2):361–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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(22):2304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mango VL, Morris EA, David Dershaw D, Abramson A, Fry C, Moskowitz CS, et al. Abbreviated protocol for breast MRI: are multiple sequences needed for cancer detection? Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):65–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Grimm LJ, Soo MS, Yoon S, Kim C, Ghate SV, Johnson KS. Abbreviated screening protocol for breast MRI: a feasibility study. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(9):1157–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harvey SC, Di Carlo PA, Lee B, Obadina E, Sippo D, Mullen L. An abbreviated protocol for high-risk screening breast MRI saves time and resources. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(4):374–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuhl CK. Abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with dense breast: the EA1141 trial. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1090):20170441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Media ACoDaC. ACR manual on contrast media: American College of Radiology; 2020. Available from: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual.

  24. Altun E, Martin DR, Wertman R, Lugo-Somolinos A, Fuller ER 3rd, Semelka RC. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: change in incidence following a switch in gadolinium agents and adoption of a gadolinium policy--report from two U.S. universities. Radiology. 2009;253(3):689–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. RSNA statement on gadolinium-based MR contrast agents: Radiological Society of North America; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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(1):79–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:335.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Weigert JM. The Connecticut experiment; the third installment: 4 years of screening women with dense breasts with bilateral ultrasound. Breast J. 2017;23(1):34–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Tosto S, Monetti F, et al. Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(16):1882–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yang SH, Yang KH, Li YP, Zhang YC, He XD, Song AL, et al. Breast conservation therapy for stage I or stage II breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(6):1039–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Runowicz CD, Leach CR, Henry NL, Henry KS, Mackey HT, Cowens-Alvarado RL, et al. American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology breast cancer survivorship care guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):611–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carlson RW. Surveillance of patients following primary therapy. In: Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK, editors. Disease of the breast. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Noroozian M, Carlson LW, Savage JL, Jeffries DO, Joe AI, Neal CH, et al. Use of screening mammography to detect occult malignancy in autologous breast reconstructions: a 15-year experience. Radiology. 2018;289(1):39–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Krishnamurthy R, Whitman GJ, Stelling CB, Kushwaha AC. Mammographic findings after breast conservation therapy. Radiographics. 1999;19 Spec No:S53–62; quiz S262–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mendelson EB. Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol Clin N Am. 1992;30(1):107–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yilmaz MH, Esen G, Ayarcan Y, et al. The role of US and MR imaging in detecting local chest wall tumor recurrence after mastectomy. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007;13(1):13–8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Administration USFaD. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) in women with breast implants: preliminary FDA findings and analyses. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/implantsandprosthetics/breastimplants/ucm239996.htm.

  38. Roller R, Chetlen A, Kasales C. Imaging of breast implants and their associated complications. J Am Osteopath Coll Radiol. 2014;3(1):2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Administration USFaD. Update on the safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants (2011) - executive summary. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/update-safety-silicone-gel-filled-breast-implants-2011-executive-summary.

  40. Coroneos CJ, Selber JC, Offodile AC 2nd, Butler CE, Clemens MW. US FDA breast implant postapproval studies: long-term outcomes in 99,993 patients. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):30–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Cutter G, Barlow WE, Rosenberg R, et al. Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA. 2004;291(4):442–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McIntosh SA, Horgan K. Augmentation mammoplasty: effect on diagnosis of breast cancer. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008;61(2):124–9.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Xu F, Sun H, Zhang C, Jiang H, Guan S, Wang X, et al. Comparison of surgical complication between immediate implant and autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a multicenter study of 426 cases. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118(6):953–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):901–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Garvey PB, Buchel EW, Pockaj BA, Casey WJ 3rd, Gray RJ, Hernandez JL, et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(6):1711–9; discussion 20–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pinel-Giroux FM, El Khoury MM, Trop I, Bernier C, David J, Lalonde L. Breast reconstruction: review of surgical methods and spectrum of imaging findings. Radiographics. 2013;33(2):435–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Peng C, Chang CB, Tso HH, Flowers CI, Hylton NM, Joe BN. MRI appearance of tumor recurrence in myocutaneous flap reconstruction after mastectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):W471–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Howard MA, Polo K, Pusic AL, Cordeiro PG, Hidalgo DA, Mehrara B, et al. Breast cancer local recurrence after mastectomy and TRAM flap reconstruction: incidence and treatment options. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(5):1381–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kaoutzanis C, Ganesh Kumar N, O’Neill D, Wormer B, Winocour J, Layliev J, et al. Enhanced recovery pathway in microvascular autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction: should it become the standard of care? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(4):841–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Juhl AA, Redsted S, Engberg DT. Autologous fat grafting after breast conserving surgery: breast imaging changes and patient-reported outcome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(11):1570–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Mary Scott Soo, Karen S. Johnson & Lars Grimm

Authors
  1. Mary Scott Soo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen S. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lars Grimm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Scott Soo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine/Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA

    Gretchen G. Kimmick

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Rebecca A. Shelby

  3. Duke University School of Medicine Duke Cancer Network, Durham, NC, USA

    Linda M. Sutton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Soo, M.S., Johnson, K.S., Grimm, L. (2021). Breast Imaging: Screening for New Breast Cancers and for Cancer Recurrence. In: Kimmick, G.G., Shelby, R.A., Sutton, L.M. (eds) Common Issues in Breast Cancer Survivors. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75377-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75377-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75376-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75377-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation