Benefits and Risks of Mammography Screening in Women Ages 40 to 49 Years.

Breast cancer screening in the United States is complicated by conflicting recommendations from professional and governmental organizations. The benefits and risks of breast cancer screening differ though by age which should influence shared decision-making discussions. Compared to older women, women ages 40 to 49 years have a lower risk of breast cancer, but the types of breast cancer that develop are often more aggressive with a poorer prognosis. Furthermore, younger women have a longer life expectancy and fewer comorbidities. The primary benefits of screening for women in their 40s are a reduction in breast cancer mortality, years of life lost to breast cancer, and morbidity of breast cancer treatment by detecting cancers at an earlier stage. Compared to older women, the risks of breast cancer screening in women ages 40 to 49 years includes more false positive recalls and biopsies as well as transient anxiety. Concerns regarding radiation induced malignancy and overdiagnosis are minimal in this age group. The shorter lead time of breast cancer in women ages 40 to 49 years also favors shorter screening intervals. This information should help inform providers in their shared decision-making discussions with patients.

Degree of Enhancement on Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Lesion Type on Mammography (MG): Comparison Based on Histological Results.

BACKGROUND Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a new method of breast cancer diagnosis in which an iodinated contrast agent is injected and dual-energy mammography is obtained in multiple views of the breasts. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of enhancement on CESM with lesion characteristics on mammography (MG) and lesion histology in women with suspicious breast lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS The degree of enhancement on CESM (absent, weak, medium, or strong) was compared to lesion characteristics on MG (mass, mass with microcalcifications, or microcalcifications alone) and histology (infiltrating carcinoma, intraductal carcinoma, or benign) to compare sensitivity of the two modalities and to establish correlations that might improve diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS Among 225 lesions identified with CESM and MG, histological evaluation revealed 143 carcinomas (127 infiltrating, 16 intraductal) and 82 benign lesions. This is the largest cohort investigated with CESM to date. The sensitivity of CESM was higher than that of MG (100% and 90%, respectively, p=0.010). Medium or strong enhancement on CESM and the presence of a mass on MG was the most likely indictor of malignancy (55.1% p=0.002). Among benign lesions, 60% presented as enhancement on CESM (were false-positive), and most frequently as medium or weak enhancement, together with a mass on MG (53%, p=0.047). Unfortunately, the study did not find combinations of MG findings and CESM enhancement patterns that would be helpful in defining false-positive lesions. We observed systematic overestimation of maximum lesion diameter on CESM compared to histology (mean difference: 2.29 mm). CONCLUSIONS Strong or medium enhancement on CESM and mass or mass with microcalcifications on MG were strong indicators of malignant transformation. However, we found no combination of MG and CESM characteristics helpful in defining false-positive lesions.

Comparison of the Mammography, Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Ultrasonography in a Group of 116 patients.

Mammography (MG) is the gold-standard in breast cancer detection - the only method documented to reduce breast cancer mortality. Breast ultrasound (US) has been shown to increase sensitivity to breast cancers in screening women with dense breasts. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a novel technique intensively developed in the last few years. The goal of this study was to compare the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MG, US and CESM in detecting malignant breast lesions. The study included 116 patients. All patients were symptomatic and underwent MG, US and CESM. A radiologist with 20 years of experience in US and MG breast imaging and 1 year of experience in CESM reviewed images acquired in each of the three modalities separately, within an interval of 14-30 days. All identified lesions were confirmed at core biopsy. BI-RADS classifications on US, MG and CESM were compared to histopathology. MG, CESM and US were compared among 116 patients with 137 lesions encountered. Sensitivity of CESM was 100%, significantly higher than that of MG (90%, p<0.004) or US (92%, p<0.01). CESM accuracy was 78%, also higher than MG (69%, p<0.004) and US (70%, p=0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between AUCs for CESM and US (both 0.83). The AUCs of both US and CESM, however, were significantly larger than that of MG (p<0.0004 for each). CESM permitted better detection of malignant lesions than both MG and US, read individually. CESM found lesion enhancement in some benign lesions, as well, yielding a rate of false-positive diagnoses similar to that of MG and US.

Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.

BACKGROUND: The main goal of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with histopathological results and to compare the sensitivity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values for both imaging modalities. MATERIAL/METHODS: After ethics approval, CESM and MRI examinations were performed in 102 patients who had suspicious lesions described in conventional mammography. All visible lesions were evaluated independently by 2 experienced radiologists using BI-RADS classifications (scale 1-5). Dimensions of lesions measured with each modality were compared to postoperative histopathology results. RESULTS: There were 102 patients entered into CESM/MRI studies and 118 lesions were identified by the combination of CESM and breast MRI. Histopathology confirmed that 81 of 118 lesions were malignant and 37 were benign. Of the 81 malignant lesions, 72 were invasive cancers and 9 were in situ cancers. Sensitivity was 100% with CESM and 93% with breast MRI. Accuracy was 79% with CESM and 73% with breast MRI. ROC curve areas based on BI-RADS were 0.83 for CESM and 0.84 for breast MRI. Lesion size estimates on CESM and breast MRI were similar, both slightly larger than those from histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that CESM has the potential to be a valuable diagnostic method that enables accurate detection of malignant breast lesions, has high negative predictive value, and a false-positive rate similar to that of breast MRI.

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.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography has been shown to decrease mortality from breast cancer, and mammography is the mainstay of screening for clinically occult disease. Mammography, however, has well-recognized limitations, and recently, other imaging including ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging have been used as adjunctive screening tools, mainly for women who may be at increased risk for the development of breast cancer. The Society of Breast Imaging and the Breast Imaging Commission of the ACR are issuing these recommendations to provide guidance to patients and clinicians on the use of imaging to screen for breast cancer. Wherever possible, the recommendations are based on available evidence. Where evidence is lacking, the recommendations are based on consensus opinions of the fellows and executive committee of the Society of Breast Imaging and the members of the Breast Imaging Commission of the ACR.

Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Film mammography has limited sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer in women with radiographically dense breasts. We assessed whether the use of digital mammography would avoid some of these limitations. METHODS: A total of 49,528 asymptomatic women presenting for screening mammography at 33 sites in the United States and Canada underwent both digital and film mammography. All relevant information was available for 42,760 of these women (86.3 percent). Mammograms were interpreted independently by two radiologists. Breast-cancer status was ascertained on the basis of a breast biopsy done within 15 months after study entry or a follow-up mammogram obtained at least 10 months after study entry. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the results. RESULTS: In the entire population, the diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography was similar (difference between methods in the area under the ROC curve, 0.03; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.02 to 0.08; P=0.18). However, the accuracy of digital mammography was significantly higher than that of film mammography among women under the age of 50 years (difference in the area under the curve, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.25; P=0.002), women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts on mammography (difference, 0.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.18; P=0.003), and premenopausal or perimenopausal women (difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.24; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The overall diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography as a means of screening for breast cancer is similar, but digital mammography is more accurate in women under the age of 50 years, women with radiographically dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00008346.)

American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.

In 2003, the American Cancer Society updated its guidelines for early detection of breast cancer based on recommendations from a formal review of evidence and a recent workshop. The new screening recommendations address screening mammography, physical examination, screening older women and women with comorbid conditions, screening women at high risk, and new screening technologies.