EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50–69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1–10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40–49 years and 70–74 years, although with “limited evidence”. Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50–69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40–45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become “routine mammography” in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged.Key points• EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography.• A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50–69 years.• Extension to 73–75 and from 40–45 to 49 years is also encouraged.• Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used.• DBT is set to become “routine mammography” in the screening setting in the next future.
Percutaneous core biopsy (CB) has been introduced to increase the ability of accurately diagnosing breast malignancies without the need of resorting to surgery. Compared to conventional automated 14 gauge needle core biopsy (NCB), vacuum-assisted needle core biopsy (VANCB) allows obtaining larger specimens and has recognized advantages particularly when the radiological pattern is represented by microcalcifications. Regardless of technical improvements, a small percentage of percutaneous CBs performed to detect breast lesions are still classified, according to European and UK guidelines, in the borderline B3 category, including a group of heterogeneous lesions with uncertain malignant potential. We aimed to assess the prevalence and positive predictive values (PPV) on surgical excision (SE) of B3 category (overall and by sub-categories) in a large series of non-palpable breast lesions assessed through VANCB, also comparison with published data on CB. Overall, 26,165 consecutive stereotactic VANCB were identified in 22 Italian centres: 3107 (11.9%) were classified as B3, of which 1644 (54.2%) proceeded to SE to establish a definitive histological diagnosis of breast pathology. Due to a high proportion of microcalcifications as main radiological pattern, the overall PPV was 21.2% (range 10.6%-27.3% for different B3 subtypes), somewhat lower than the average value (24.5%) from published studies (range 9.9%-35.1%). Our study, to date the largest series of B3 with definitive histological assessment on SE, suggests that B3 lesions should be referred for SE even if VANCB is more accurate than NCB in the diagnostic process of non-palpable, sonographically invisible breast lesions.
Surveillance of interval cancers (IC) lacks standardisation of review methodologies. We investigated the extent to which 'informed' or 'blinded' review may affect IC classification. This is a retrospective study of 100 validated screening mammograms (20 IC, 80 negative screens) independently reviewed by six radiologists. Three sequenced review methods with increasing information were used: (1) blinded (no IC information, case mix), (2) partially informed, and (3) fully informed. IC 'screening error' (SE) reports averaged 24% (10-40), 33% (20-55), and 42% (35-50) for phases 1, 2, and 3, while 'minimal signs' (MS) reports averaged 6% (5-15), 10% (10-20), and 20% (15-30), respectively. Negative mammograms classification was MS in 18% (7-39) or SE in 19% (11-29), respectively. MS or SE classification was more likely for method 2 (OR=1.78, p=0.033) and method 3 (OR=3.91, p=0.000) relative to method 1, but no reader effect was evident. Inter-observer agreement in classifying at method 1 was slight (k 0.20), lowest (k 0.06) for MS, and fair (k 0.25) for negative and SE categories. More 'informed' review is more likely to yield an IC classification as MS or SE. Due to expected variability, review methods need standardisation to improve screening quality. Our data support blinded review of IC in mammography screening.
Women who were previously treated for breast cancer (BC) are an important particular subgroup of women at intermediate BC risk. Their breast follow-up should be planned taking in consideration a 1.0–1.5 % annual rate of loco-regional recurrences and new ipsilateral or contralateral BCs during 15–20 years, and be based on a regional/district invitation system. This activity should be carried out by a Department of Radiology integrating screening and diagnostics in the context of a Breast Unit. We recommend the adoption of protocols dedicated to women previously treated for BC, with a clear definition of responsibilities, methods for invitation, site(s) of visits, methods for clinical and radiological evaluation, follow-up duration, role and function of family doctors and specialists. These women will be invited to get a mammogram in dedicated sessions starting from the year after the end of treatment. The planned follow-up duration will be at least 10 years and will be defined on the basis of patient’s age and preferences, taking into consideration organizational matters. Special agreements can be defined in the case of women who have their follow-up planned at other qualified centers. Dedicated screening sessions should include: evaluation of familial/personal history (if previously not done) for identifying high-risk conditions which could indicate a different screening strategy; immediate evaluation of mammograms by one or, when possible, two breast radiologists with possible addition of supplemental mammographic views, digital breast tomosynthesis, clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound; and prompt planning of possible further workup. Results of these screening sessions should be set apart from those of general female population screening and presented in dedicated reports. The following research issues are suggested: further risk stratification and effectiveness of follow-up protocols differentiated also for BC pathologic subtype and molecular classification, and evaluation of different models of survivorship care, also in terms of cost-effectiveness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.