Invited Commentary: The Breast Density Dilemma—Challenges, Lessons, and Future Directions
2015; Radiological Society of North America; Volume: 35; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1148/rg.352140276
ISSN1527-1323
Autores Tópico(s)Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
ResumoHomeRadioGraphicsVol. 35, No. 2 PreviousNext Breast ImagingInvited Commentary: The Breast Density Dilemma—Challenges, Lessons, and Future DirectionsReni S. ButlerReni S. ButlerAuthor AffiliationsDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine New Haven, ConnecticutReni S. ButlerPublished Online:Mar 12 2015https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.352140276MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In References1. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(3):227–236. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2. Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Tamimi RM. Mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk by menopausal status, postmenopausal hormone use and a family history of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2012;23(5):785–790. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Byrne C, Schairer C, Brinton LA, et al. Effects of mammographic density and benign breast disease on breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2001;12(2):103–110. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87(21):1622–1629. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5. Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, et al. Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res 2007;9(6):217. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(6):1159–1169. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. Sickles EA. The use of breast imaging to screen women at high risk for cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5):859–878. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276(1): 33–38. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9. Osako T, Iwase T, Takahashi K, et al. Diagnostic mammography and ultrasonography for palpable and nonpalpable breast cancer in women aged 30 to 39 years. Breast Cancer 2007;14(3):255–259. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10. Osako T, Takahashi K, Iwase T, et al. Diagnostic ultrasonography and mammography for invasive and noninvasive breast cancer in women aged 30 to 39 years. Breast Cancer 2007;14(2):229–233. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(13):1081–1087. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar12. 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(3):168–175. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar13. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225(1):165–175. Link, Google Scholar14. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dünser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21(4):325–336. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar15. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(1):177–182. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar16. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76(4):626–630. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar17. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221(3):641–649. Link, Google Scholar18. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(6):1675–1679. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar19. 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(18):2151–2163. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar20. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Selection, follow-up, and analysis in the Health Insurance Plan Study: a randomized trial with breast cancer screening. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1985;67:65–74. Medline, Google Scholar21. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 1999;353(9168):1903–1908. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar22. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38(4):625–651. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar23. 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 2000;92(18):1490–1499. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar24. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up—randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 Part 1):305–312. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar25. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359(9310):909–919. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar26. Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, et al. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 2003;361(9367):1411–1417. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar27. Bjurstam N, Björneld L, Warwick J, et al. The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial. Cancer 2003;97(10):2387–2396. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar28. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012;265(1):59–69. Link, Google Scholar29. Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H, Zhang Z. Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5):931–987. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar30. Daly CP, Bailey JE, Klein KA, Helvie MA. Complicated breast cysts on sonography: is aspiration necessary to exclude malignancy? Acad Radiol 2008;15(5):610–617. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar31. Chang YW, Kwon KH, Goo DE, Choi DL, Lee HK, Yang SB. Sonographic differentiation of benign and malignant cystic lesions of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(1):47–53. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar32. Chen M, Zhan WW, Wang WP. Cystic breast lesions by conventional ultrasonography: sonographic subtype–pathologic correlation and BI-RADS assessment. Arch Med Sci 2014;10(1):76–83. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar33. 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(13):1394–1404. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar34. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7(1):18–27. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar35. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, 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. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar36. Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria: breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10(1):11–14. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar37. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009;7(10):1060–1096. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar38. Price ER, Hargreaves J, Lipson JA, et al. The California Breast Density Information Group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation. Radiology 2013;269(3):887–892. Link, Google Scholar39. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267(1):47–56. Link, Google Scholar40. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200(6):1401–1408. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar41. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14(7):583–589. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar42. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013;269(3):694–700. Link, Google Scholar43. Hooley RJ, Geisel JL, Raghu M, et al. Performance of whole breast ultrasound in women with dense breasts following 3D tomosynthesis mammography [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program [book online]. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 20013. http://rsna2013.rsna.org/program/?PAGE=1. Accessed July 2014. Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished online: Mar 12 2015Published in print: Mar 2015 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByGlobal guidelines for breast cancer screening: A systematic reviewWenhuiRen, MingyangChen, YoulinQiao, FanghuiZhao2022 | The Breast, Vol. 64Sensing mammographic density using single-sided portable Nuclear Magnetic ResonanceMaherAlqurashi, Konstantin I.Momot, AliAamry, H.I.Almohammed, HussinAamri, Yehia H.Johary, Fouad A.Abolaban, AbdelmoneimSulieman2022 | Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 4Mammographic density and breast cancer screeningR. J.Bell2020 | Climacteric, Vol. 23, No. 5Evaluation of automated volumetric breast density software in comparison with visual assessments in an Asian populationKartiniRahmat, NazimahAb Mumin, Marlina TantyRamli Hamid, FarhanaFadzli, Wei LinNg, Nadia FareedaMuhammad Gowdh2020 | Medicine, Vol. 99, No. 39Breast Density Reporting Laws and Supplemental Screening—A Survey of Referring Providers' Experiences and UnderstandingSantoMaimone, Michelle D.McDonough, Stephanie L.Hines2017 | Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, Vol. 46, No. 2Dense Breast Notification and Supplemental Screening: A Survey of Current Strategies and SentimentsSantoMaimone, MichelleMcDonough2017 | The Breast Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2Digital Breast TomosynthesisAlbertoTagliafico, GiulioTagliafico2016Recommended Articles Reducing Unnecessary Biopsy and Follow-up of Benign Cystic Breast LesionsRadiology2020Volume: 295Issue: 1pp. 52-53Mammographic Breast Density, Benign Breast Disease, and Subsequent Breast Cancer Risk in 3.9 Million Korean WomenRadiology2022Volume: 304Issue: 3pp. 534-541Breast Cancer Screening with Abbreviated Breast MRI: 3-year Outcome AnalysisRadiology2021Volume: 299Issue: 1pp. 73-83Closing the Chapter on Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening with USRadiology2021Volume: 298Issue: 3pp. 576-577Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography DatabaseRadiology2020Volume: 296Issue: 1pp. 32-41See More RSNA Education Exhibits Quality Assessment of the BI-RADS 3 Classification and Utility of a BI-RADS 3 AuditDigital Posters2019Non-Contrast-Enhanced Breast MR Screening for Women with Dense BreastsDigital Posters2019Common Questions and Challenging Scenarios of the Daily Practice Using the BI-RADS® AtlasDigital Posters2022 RSNA Case Collection Complicated Breast CystRSNA Case Collection2022Fibroadenoma of the breastRSNA Case Collection2020Sebaceous cystRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 35, No. 2 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download
Referência(s)