Modern methods of medical imaging in the diagnosis and screening of breast cancer

Authors

  • Ye.M. Bozhok State Institution “Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • O.S. Zotov Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine,

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22141/2663-3272.2.4.2019.195182

Keywords:

breast cancer, medical imaging, screening

Abstract

Today, breast cancer is a significant medical and social problem because it has high morbidity and mortality rates. Ways to reduce these indicators are early diagnosis and effective treatment. Modern methods of medical imaging have an important place as a tool for timely and accurate diagnosis of breast cancer. The article describes the diagnostic possibilities, advantages and disadvantages of imaging techniques used in modern clinical practice. The issues of radiation diagnostic methods in the secondary prevention of breast cancer, that is, its early detection, are covered. The traditional screening method — X-ray mammography is analyzed in terms of effectiveness in preventing death from breast cancer, as well as cost effectiveness. The possibilities of reducing the burden of screening methods on the budget are discussed: from the application of statistical models to the use of less expensive newest screening techniques for the formation of groups at high risk of developing breast cancer, whoich should undergo expensive screening procedures more often.

References

Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Dikshit R. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in globocan 2012. Int. J. Cancer. 2015. 136. E359-86.

Bray F., Ren J.S., Masuyer E., Ferlay J. Estimates of global cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008. Int. J. Cancer. 2013. 132. 1133-45.

Pisani P., Parkin D.M., Bray F., Ferlay J. Estimates of the worldwide mortality from 25 cancers in 1990. Int. J. Cancer. 1999. 83. 18-29. Erratum in: Int. J. Cancer. 1999. 83. 870-3.

Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2016. Toronto: Canadian Cancer Society, 2016.

Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The be­nefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lacet. 12. 380. 1778-86.

Lauby-Secretan B., Scoccianti C., Loomis D., International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group et al. Breast Cancer Screening — Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015. 372(24). 2353-2358.

Broeders M., Moss S., Nystrom L. et al. on behalf of the euroscreen Working Group. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J. Med. Screen. 2012. 19 (suppl. 1). 14-25.

Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Bieling H.B. et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007. 370. 485-92.

Kuhl C.K., Strobel K., Bieling H., Leutner C. et al. Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2017. 283. 361-70.

Gagnon J., Levesque E., Borduas F. et al. on behalf of the Clinical Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening and Prevention. Recommendations on breast cancer screening and prevention in the context of implementing risk stratification: impending changes to current policies. Curr. Oncol. 2016. 23. 615-25.

Hauge I.H., Pedersen K., Olerud H.M., Hole E.O., Hofvind S. The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50–69 years is minimal. Acta Radiol. 2014. 55(10). 1174-1179.

Yaffe M.J., Mainprize J.G. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011. 258(1). 98-105.

Houssami N. Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev. Med. Devices. 2015. 12(4). 377-379.

Friedewald S.M., Rafferty E.A., Rose S.L. et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014. 311. 2499-507.

Skaane P., Bandos A.I., Gullien R. et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013. 267. 47-56.

Tagliafico A.S., Calabrese M., Mariscotti G. 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.

Friedewald S.M., Rafferty E.A., Rose S.L. et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014. 311. 2499-507.

Breast screening: the facts — or maybe not. BMJ. 2009. 338. b86.

Paci E., Duffy S. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis and overtreatment in service screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2005. 7. 266-70.

Kopans D.B., Smith R.A., Duffy S.W. Mammographic screening and “overdiagnosis”. Radiology. 2011. 260. 616-20.

Gotzsche P.C., Hartling O.J., Nielsen M., Brodersen J., Jorgensen K.J., Welch H.G., Black W.C. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2010. 102. 605-13.

Helvie M.A., Chang J.T., Hendrick R.E., Banerjee M. Reduction in late-stage breast cancer incidence in the mammography era: implications for overdiagnosis of invasive cancer. Cancer. 2014. 120. 2649-56.

Lewin J.M., Isaacs P.K., Vance V., Larke F.J. Dual-energy contrastenhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003. 229. 261-8.

Covington M.F., Pizzitola V.J., Lorans R. et al. The future of contrast-enhanced mammography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2018. 210. 292-30.

Coldman A., Phillips N., Wilson C. et al. Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2014. 106. 261.

Oeffinger K.C., Fontham E.T., Etzioni R. et al. on behalf of the American Cancer Society. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015. 314. 1599-614.

Tabar L., Vitak B., Yen M.F., Chen H.H., Smith R.A., Duffy S.W. Number needed to screen: lives saved over 20 years of follow-up in mammographic screening. J. Med. Screen. 2004. 11.

-9.

Zackrisson S., Andersson I., Janzon L., Manjer J., Garne J.P. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmo mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ. 2006. 332. 689-92.

Ward E.M., DeSantis C.E., Lin C.C. et al. Cancer statistics: breast cancer in situ. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015. 65. 481-95.

Duffy S.W., Dibden A., Michalopoulos D. et al. Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2016. 17. 109-14.

Mittmann N., Stout N.K., Lee P. et al. Total cost-effectiveness of mammography screening strategies. Health Rep. 2015 Dec. 26(12). 16-25. PMID: 26676235.

Pataki R., Ismail Z., Coldman A.J. et al. Cost-effectiveness of annual versus biennial screening mammography for women with high mammographic breast density Journal of Medical Screening. Dec. 2014. Vol. 21. № 4. Р. 180-188.

Tina Shih Y.C., Dong W., Xu Y., Shen Y. Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Updated Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Average-Risk Women Value Health. 2019 Feb. 22(2). 185-193. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.880. Epub 2018 Sep.

Biller-Andorno N., Jüni P. Abolishing Mammography Screening Programs? A View from the Swiss Medical Board. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014. 370. 1965-1967. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1401875.

Miller A.B., Wall C., Baines C.J. et al. Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ. 2014 Feb 11. 348. g366. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g366.

Gøtzsche P.C., Jørgensen K.J. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 4. (6). CD001877. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5

Brennan M., Houssami N. Thermography in breast cancer diagnosis, screening and risk assessment: systematic review. Breast cancer management. Feb 2013. Vol. 2. № 2. URL: https://doi.org/10.2217/bmt.13.4

Issue

Section

Original Researches