European Journal of Radiology
Volume 39, Issue 1 , Pages 50-59 , July 2001

Screening women at high risk of breast cancer on the basis of evidence

  • Ruth Warren

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationTel.: +44-1223-216440; fax: +44-1223-217886

Received 27 January 2000 ,Revised 7 June 2000 ,Accepted 8 June 2000.

References 

  1. Larsson LG, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al.  Updated overview of the Swedish Randomized Trials on Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography: age group 40–49 at randomization. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 1997;22:57–61
  2. Nystrom L, Larsson LG, Wall S, et al.  An overview of the Swedish randomised mammography trials: total mortality pattern and the representivity of the study cohorts. J. Med. Screen. 1996;3:85–87
  3. Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 1997;22:27–30
  4. Sixteen-year mortality from breast cancer in the UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Lancet 1999; 353:1909–1914 (see comments).
  5. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al.  14 Years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet. 1999;353:1903–1908 (see comments)
  6. Tabar L, Chen HH, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Smith TC. Recent results from the Swedish Two-County Trial: the effects of age, histologic type, and mode of detection on the efficacy of breast cancer screening. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 1997;22:43–47
  7. Wald N, Murphy P, Major P, Parkes C, et al.  UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer. Br. Med. J. 1995;311:1189–1193
  8. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms. Br. Med. J. 1996;312:809–812
  9. Bryan S, Brown J, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of two view versus one view procedures in London. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 1995;49:70–78
  10. Day N, Duffy S. Trial design based on surrogate end points — application to comparison of different breast screening frequencies. J. R. Stat. Soc. A. 1996;159:49–60
  11. Feig SA. Role and evaluation of mammography and other imaging methods for breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and staging. Semin. Nucl. Med. 1999;29:3–15
  12. Stearns V, Yamauchi H, Hayes DF. Circulating tumor markers in breast cancer: accepted utilities and novel prospects. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 1998;52:239–259
  13. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al.  A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science. 1994;266:66–71
  14. Malkin D, Jolly KW, Barbier N, et al.  Germline mutations of the p53 tumor-suppressor gene in children and young adults with second malignant neoplasms. New Engl. J. Med. 1992;326:1309–1315 (see comments)
  15. Liaw D, Marsh DJ, Li J, et al.  Germline mutations of the PTEN gene in Cowden disease, an inherited breast and thyroid cancer syndrome. Nat. Genet. 1997;16:64–67
  16. Wooster R, Neuhausen SL, Mangion J, et al.  Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12–13. Science. 1994;265:2088–2090
  17. Szabo CI, King MC. Inherited breast and ovarian cancer. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1995;4:1811–1817
  18. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. The calculation of breast cancer risk for women with a first degree family history of ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 1993;28:115–120
  19. King MC, Rowell S, Love SM. Inherited breast and ovarian cancer. What are the risks? What are the choices?. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1993;269:1975–1980
  20. Burke W, Daly M, Garber J, et al.  Consortium CGS. Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer ii. BRCA1 and BRCA2. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1997;277:997–1003
  21. Spicer DV, Krecker EA, Pike MC. The endocrine prevention of breast cancer. Cancer Invest. 1995;13:495–504
  22. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al.  Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371–1388 (see comments)
  23. Powles T, Eeles R, Ashley S, et al.  Interim analysis of the incidence of breast cancer in the Royal Marsden Hospital tamoxifen randomised chemoprevention trial. Lancet. 1998;352:98–101 (see comments)
  24. Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Costa A, et al.  Prevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen: preliminary findings from the Italian randomised trial among hysterectomised women. Italian Tamoxifen Prevention Study. Lancet. 1998;352:93–97 (see comments)
  25. Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O'Fallon WM, Beard CM, Kurland LT, Melton LJ. Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. New Engl. J. Med. 1997;336:677–682 (see comments)
  26. Evans DG, Ribiero G, Warrell D, Donnai D. Ovarian cancer family and prophylactic choices. J. Med. Genet. 1992;29:416–418 (see comments)
  27. Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al.  Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 1999;340:77–84 (see comments)
  28. Narod SA, Risch H, Moslehi R, et al.  Oral contraceptives and the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. Hereditary Ovarian Cancer Clinical Study Group. New Engl. J. Med. 1998;339:424–428 (see comments)
  29. Tabar L, Duffy S, Vitak B, Chen H, Prevost T. The natural history of breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86:449–462
  30. Feig S. Assessment of radiation risk from screening mammography. Cancer. 1996;77:818–822 (editorial)
  31. Law J. Cancers detected and induced in mammography screening: new screening schedules and younger women with family history. Br. J. Radiol. 1997;70:62–69
  32. Moss S, Faulkner K, Law J, Young K. Benefits versus risks from mammography. A critical assessment. Cancer. 1997;79:628–629
  33. Kashikar-Zuck S, Keefe FJ, Kornguth P, Beaupre P, Holzberg A, Delong D. Pain coping and the pain experience during mammography: a preliminary study. Pain. 1997;73:165–172
  34. Jackson V, Hendrick R, Feig S, Kopans D. Imaging of the radiographically dense breast. Radiology. 1993;188:297–301
  35. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US — diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology. 1998;207:191–199
  36. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer. 1995;76:626–630 (see comments)
  37. Schmidt F, Hartwagner KA, Spork EB, Groell R. Experience enhances mammographic interpretation, doesn't it? Yes, it does!. Cancer. 1998;83:2432–2433 (editorial; comment)
  38. Nawano S, Murakami K, Moriyama N, Kobatake H, Takeo H, Shimura K. Computer-aided diagnosis in full digital mammography. Invest. Radiol. 1999;34:310–316
  39. Denton E, Field S. Just how valuable is double reporting in screening mammography?. Clin. Radiol. 1997;52:466–468
  40. 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. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1996;276:33–38 (see comments)
  41. Moss S, Blanks R, Group ICW. Calculating appropriate target cancer detection rates and expected interval cancer rates for the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 1998;52:111–115
  42. Hartley LD, Cobb BJ, Hutchinson DE. Estimating mean glandular dose using proprietary mammography phantoms. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 1999;50:205–213
  43. Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A. Dose and image quality in mammography with an automatic beam quality system. Br. J. Radiol. 1996;69:555–562
  44. Young K, Ramsdale M, Rust A, Cooke J. Effect of automatic kV selection on dose and contrast for a mammographic X-ray system. Br. J. Radiol. 1997;70:1036–1042
  45. Burch A, Goodman DA. A pilot survey of radiation doses received in the United Kingdom Breast Screening Programme. Br. J. Radiol. 1998;71:517–527
  46. den Otter W, Merchant T, Beijerinck D, Koten J. Breast cancer induction due to mammographic screening in hereditarily affected women. Anticancer. Res. 1996;16:3173–3175
  47. Valentin J. Genetic susceptibility to cancer. In:  Valentin J editors. Annals of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) 79. Oxford: Pergamon; 1998;p. 157
  48. Tokunaga M, Land CE, Tokuoka S, Nishimori I, Soda M, Akiba S. Incidence of female breast cancer among atomic bomb survivors, 1950–1985. Radiat. Res. 1994;138:209–223
  49. Land CE. Studies of cancer and radiation dose among atomic bomb survivors. The example of breast cancer. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1995;274:402–407 (see comments)
  50. Land CE, Hayakawa N, Machado SG, et al.  A case-control interview study of breast cancer among Japanese A-bomb survivors. II. Interactions with radiation dose. Cancer Causes Control. 1994;5:167–176
  51. .Land CE, Tokunaga M, Tokuoka S, Nakamura N. Early-onset breast cancer in A-bomb survivors. Lancet. 1993;342:237; (letter)
  52. Hrubec Z, Boice JD, Monson RR, Rosenstein M. Breast cancer after multiple chest fluoroscopies: second follow-up of Massachusetts women with tuberculosis. Cancer Res. 1989;49:229–234
  53. Hildreth NG, Shore RE, Dvoretsky PM. The risk of breast cancer after irradiation of the thymus in infancy. New Engl. J. Med. 1989;321:1281–1284 (see comments)
  54. Storm HH, Andersson M, Boice JD, et al.  Adjuvant radiotherapy and risk of contralateral breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1992;84:1245–1250
  55. Limoli C, Corcoran J, Milligan J, Ward J, Morgan W. Critical target and dose and dose-rate responses for the induction of chromosomal instability by ionizing radiation. Radiat. Res. 1999;151:677–685
  56. Prise K, Folkard M, Newman H, Michael B. Effect of radiation quality on lesion complexity in cellular DNA. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 1994;66:537–542
  57. Price A. The repair of ionising radiation-induced damage to DNA. Semin. Cancer Biol. 1993;4:61–71
  58. Ward J. Radiation mutagenesis: the initial DNA lesions responsible. Radiat. Res. 1995;142:362–368
  59. Cunliffe P, Mann J, Cameron A, Roberts K, Ward H. Radiosensitivity in ataxia telangiectasia. Br. J. Radiol. 1975;48:374–376
  60. Lavin M. Role of the ataxia-telangiectasia gene (ATM) in breast cancer. Br. Med. J. 1998;317:486–487
  61. Bebb G, Glickman B, Gelmon K, Gatti R. ‘At risk’ for breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;349:1784–1785
  62. Easton D. Cancer risks in A-T heterozygotes. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 1994;66:5177–5182
  63. Ramsay J, Birrell G, Lavin M. Breast cancer and radiotherapy in ataxia-telangiectais heterozygote. Lancet. 1996;347:1627
  64. Murnane JP, Kapp LN. A critical look at the association of human genetic syndromes with sensitivity to ionizing radiation. Semin. Cancer Biol. 1993;4:93–104
  65. FitzGerald MG, Bean JM, Hegde SR, et al.  Heterozygous ATM mutations do not contribute to early onset of breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 1997;15:307–310 (see comments)
  66. den Otter W, Merchant TE, Beijerinck D, Koten JW. Exclusion from mammographic screening of women genetically predisposed to breast cancer will probably eliminate mammographically induced breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 1993;13:1113–1115
  67. Malkin D. p53 And the Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1994;1198:197–213
  68. Kopans D. The Breast Cancer Screening Controversy and the National Institutes of Health Consensus development Conference on Breast Cancer screening for Women aged 40–49. Radiology. 1999;210:4–9
  69. Ransohoff D, Harris R. Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate?. Ann. Intern. Med. 1997;127:1029–1034
  70. Berry D. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1431–1439
  71. Tobias IS, Baum M. False positive findings of mammography will have psychological consequences. Br. Med. J. 1996;312:1227; (letter; comment) (see comments)
  72. Jatoi I, Baum M. American and European recommendations for screening mammography in younger women: a cultural divide?. Br. Med. J. 1993;307:1481–1483 (published errata appear in Br Med J January 1;308(6920):45 and 1994 January 15;308(6922):196 and 1994 March 5;308(6929):648)
  73. Baum M. Breast cancer screening for younger women is not an efficient use of resources. Br. Med. J. 1997;314:1834
  74. Baum M. Value of mammography for women aged 40–49. Lancet. 1995;345:129; (letter; comment)
  75. Fletcher S. Breast cancer screening in women aged under 50 — Slower and smaller benefits, and more frequent adverse effects. Br. Med. J. 1997;314:764–765
  76. Hindle WH, Davis L, Wright D. Clinical value of mammography for symptomatic women 35 years of age and younger. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1999;180:1484–1490
  77. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Deutch BM, Thaler HT, Lippin BS. Screening mammography: value in women 35–39 years old. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1993;161:53–56
  78. Olivetti L, Bergonzini R, Vanoli C, et al.  Is mammography useful in the detection of breast cancer in women 35 years of age or younger?. Radiol. Med. (Torino). 1998;95:161–164
  79. Jeffries DO, Adler DD. Mammographic detection of breast cancer in women under the age of 35. Invest. Radiol. 1990;25:67–71
  80. van Gils CH, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH. Short communication: breast parenchymal patterns and their changes with age. Br. J. Radiol. 1995;68:1133–1135
  81. Walker RA, Lees E, Webb MB, Dearing SJ. Breast carcinomas occurring in young women (35 years) are different. Br. J. Cancer. 1996;74:1796–1800
  82. Henderson IC, Patek AJ. Are breast cancers in young women qualitatively distinct?. Lancet. 1997;349:1488–1489 (see comments)
  83. Byrne C. Studying mammographic density: implications for understanding breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1997;89:531–533 (editorial; comment)
  84. 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;87:1622–1629
  85. Litherland JC, Stallard S, Hole D, Cordiner C. The effect of hormone replacement therapy on the sensitivity of screening mammograms. Clin. Radiol. 1999;54:285–288
  86. Seradour B, Esteve J, Heid P, Jacquemier J. Hormone replacement therapy and screening mammography: analysis of the results in the Bouches du Rhone programme. J. Med. Screen. 1999;6:99–102 (in Process Citation)
  87. Jackson VP. What is the role of sonographic breast imaging for detecting occult cancer in a patient with a strong family history of breast cancer and mammographically dense breasts without obvious masses?. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1995;165:1004; (see comments)
  88. Jackson V, Reynolds H, Hawes D. Sonography of the breast. Semin. Ulrtasound CT MR. 1996;17:460–775
  89. Friedrich M. MRI of the breast: state of the art. Eur. Radiol. 1998;8:707–725
  90. Harms SE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging. Semin. Ultrasound CT MR. 1998;19:104–120
  91. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur. J. Radiol. 1997;24:94–108
  92. Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Day N, Luben R. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme. J. Med. Screen. 1998;5:207–212
  93. Pankow JS, Vachon CM, Kuni CC, et al.  Genetic analysis of mammographic breast density in adult women: evidence of a gene effect. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1997;89:549–556 (see comments)
  94. Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Martin LJ, et al.  Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer among subjects with a family history of this disease. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1404–1408
  95. Laya MB, Larson EB, Taplin SH, White E. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1996;88:643–649 (see comments)
  96. Persson I, Thurfjell E, Holmberg L. Effect of estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement regimens on mammographic breast parenchymal density. J. Clin. Oncol. 1997;15:3201–3207
  97. Ursin G, Pike MC, Spicer DV, Porrath SA, Reitherman RW. Can mammographic densities predict effects of tamoxifen on the breast?. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1996;88:128–129 (letter)
  98. Atkinson C, Warren R, Bingham SA, Day NE. Mammographic patterns as a predictive biomarker of breast cancer risk: effect of tamoxifen. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:863–866 (in Process Citation)
  99. Eisinger F, Alby N, Bremond A, et al.  Recommendations for medical management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: the French National Ad Hoc Committee. Ann. Oncol. 1998;9:939–950
  100. Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Luben R, Day N 2000. High-risk mammographic parenchymal patterns and hormone replacement therapy: a case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 2000 (in press).
  101. Cohen ME. Effect of hormone replacement therapy on cancer detection by mammography. Lancet. 1997;349:1624; (letter; comment)
  102. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Pathology of familial breast cancer: differences between breast cancers in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and sporadic cases. Lancet. 1997;349:1505–1510 (see comments)
  103. Lakhani SR, Jacquemier J, Sloane JP, et al.  Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1138–1145
  104. Kollias J, Sibbering DM, Blamey RW, et al.  Screening women aged less than 50 years with a family history of breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer. 1998;34:878–883
  105. Pharoah PD, Stratton JF, Mackay J. Screening for breast and ovarian cancer: the relevance of family history. Br. Med. Bull. 1998;54:823–838
  106. Lalloo F, Boggis CR, Evans DG, Shenton A, Threlfall AG, Howell A. Screening by mammography, women with a family history of breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer. 1998;34:937–940
  107. Rothschild P, Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH. Ultrasound breast examination of asymptomatic patients with normal but radiodense mammograms. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1988;14:113–119
  108. Jackson VP. The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 1995;33:1161–1170
  109. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL, Chan NH. Solid breast lesions: diagnosis with US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Radiology. 1993;189:573–580
  110. Harms SE. MRI in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 1996;25:193–215
  111. Harms SE, Radensky P, Sunshine J, et al.  MRI efficacy and effectiveness research: who needs it and who pays for it?. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 1996;6:4–6
  112. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999;17:110–119 (in Process Citation)
  113. Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD. Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn. Reson. Med. 1995;33:564–568
  114. Warren R, Hayes C, Group SA. Localisation of breast lesions shown only on MRI- a review for the UK study of MRI screening for breast cancer, Br J Radiol 2000;73:123-32.
  115. Heywang-Kobrunner S, Heinig A, Schaumloffel U, et al.  MR-guided percutaneous excisional and incisional biopsy (PEIB) of breast lesions. Eur. Radiol. 1999;9:1656–1665
  116. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A, Pickuth D, Alberich T, Spielmann RP. Interventional MRI of the breast:leson localisation and biopsy. Eur. Radiol. 2000;10:36–45
  117. Kuhl CK, Elevelt A, Leutner CC, Gieseke J, Pakos E, Schild HH. Interventional breast MR imaging: clinical use of a stereotactic localization and biopsy device. Radiology. 1997;204:667–675
  118. Kuhl C, Bieling H, Gieseke J, et al.  Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast -enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology. 1997;203:137–144
  119. Mussurakis S, Buckley D, Coady A, Turnbull L, Horsman A. Observer variability in the interpretation of contrast enhanced MRI of the breast. Br. J. Radiol. 1996;69:1006–1016
  120. Leach M. National study of magnetic-resonance imaging to screen women at genetic risk of breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:6
  121. Leach M. Assessing contrast enhanced MRI as a method of screening women at genetic risk of breast cancer: study design, methodology and analysis. In: Proc ISMRM 1998: 226.
  122. Taillefer R. The role of 99mTc-sestamibi and other conventional radiopharmaceuticals in breast cancer diagnosis. Semin. Nucl. Med. 1999;29:16–40
  123. Buscombe JR, Cwikla JB, Thakrar DS, Hilson AJ. Scintigraphic imaging of breast cancer: a review. Nucl. Med. Commun. 1997;18:698–709
  124. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. PET in breast cancer. Semin. Nucl. Med. 1998;28:290–302
  125. Danielsson R, Bone B, Gad A, Sylvan M, Aspelin P. Sensitivity and specificity of planar scintimammography with 99mTc-sestamibi. Acta Radiol. 1999;40:394–399
  126. Tolmos J, Cutrone JA, Wang B, et al.  Scintimammographic analysis of nonpalpable breast lesions previously identified by conventional mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998;90:846–849
  127. Wahl RL. Overview of the current status of PET in breast cancer imaging. Q. J. Nucl. Med. 1998;42:1–7
  128. Warren R. Investigation and management of patients at high risk of developing cancer. Br. J. Radiol. 1997;70:S50–59
  129. Kash KM. Psychosocial and ethical implications of defining genetic risk for cancers. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1995;768:41–52
  130. Brenner RJ. Mammography and malpractice litigation: current status, lessons, and admonitions. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1993;161:931–935
  131. Brenner R. Medicolegal aspects of breast imaging, Radiol. Clin. North Am. 1992;30:277–286
  132. Richardson JL, Mondrus GT, Deapen D, Mack TM. Future challenges in secondary prevention of breast cancer for women at high risk. Cancer. 1994;74:1474–1481
  133. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1644–1656 (see comments)

PII: S0720-048X(00)00237-0

European Journal of Radiology
Volume 39, Issue 1 , Pages 50-59 , July 2001

Article Tools