1
|
Forrai G, Kovács E, Ambrózay É, Barta M, Borbély K, Lengyel Z, Ormándi K, Péntek Z, Tünde T, Sebő É. Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 2022; 28:1610382. [PMID: 35755417 PMCID: PMC9214693 DOI: 10.3389/pore.2022.1610382] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Breast radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists updated their previous recommendation/guidance at the 4th Hungarian Breast Cancer Consensus Conference in Kecskemét. A recommendation is hereby made that breast tumours should be screened, diagnosed and treated according to these guidelines. These professional guidelines include the latest technical developments and research findings, including the role of imaging methods in therapy and follow-up. It includes details on domestic development proposals and also addresses related areas (forensic medicine, media, regulations, reimbursement). The entire material has been agreed with the related medical disciplines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gábor Forrai
- GÉ-RAD Kft., Budapest, Hungary
- Duna Medical Center, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Eszter Kovács
- GÉ-RAD Kft., Budapest, Hungary
- Duna Medical Center, Budapest, Hungary
| | | | | | - Katalin Borbély
- National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
- Ministry of Human Capacities, Budapest, Hungary
| | | | | | | | - Tasnádi Tünde
- Dr Réthy Pál Member Hospital of Békés County Central Hospital, Békéscsaba, Hungary
| | - Éva Sebő
- Kenézy Gyula University Hospital, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 177:251-276. [PMID: 31177342 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05300-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2018] [Accepted: 05/27/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE It is well established that high mammographic density (MD), when adjusted for age and body mass index, is one of the strongest known risk factors for breast cancer (BC), and also associates with higher incidence of interval cancers in screening due to the masking of early mammographic abnormalities. Increasing research is being undertaken to determine the underlying histological and biochemical determinants of MD and their consequences for BC pathogenesis, anticipating that improved mechanistic insights may lead to novel preventative or treatment interventions. At the same time, technological advances in digital and contrast mammography are such that the validity of well-established relationships needs to be re-examined in this context. METHODS With attention to old versus new technologies, we conducted a literature review to summarise the relationships between clinicopathologic features of BC and the density of the surrounding breast tissue on mammography, including the associations with BC biological features inclusive of subtype, and implications for the clinical disease course encompassing relapse, progression, treatment response and survival. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS There is reasonable evidence to support positive relationships between high MD (HMD) and tumour size, lymph node positivity and local relapse in the absence of radiotherapy, but not between HMD and LVI, regional relapse or distant metastasis. Conflicting data exist for associations of HMD with tumour location, grade, intrinsic subtype, receptor status, second primary incidence and survival, which need further confirmatory studies. We did not identify any relationships that did not hold up when data involving newer imaging techniques were employed in analysis.
Collapse
|
3
|
Wang T, Shuai JJ, Li X, Wen Z. Impact of full field digital mammography diagnosis for female patients with breast cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98:e15175. [PMID: 31008938 PMCID: PMC6494235 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000015175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous clinical studies have reported that full field digital mammography (FFDM) can be used for diagnosis on breast cancer (BC) with promising outcome results. However, no study systematically investigates its diagnostic impact on female patients with BC. Thus, this systematic review will assess the accurate of FFDM diagnosis on BC. METHODS In this study, we will perform a comprehensive search strategy in the databases as follows: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDILINE, PSYCINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Information, and Wanfang Data from inception to February 28, 2019. All case-controlled studies exploring the impacts of FFDM diagnosis for patients BC will be fully considered for inclusion in this study. Two authors will independently scan the title and abstracts for relevance, and assess full texts for inclusion. They will also independently extract data and will assess methodological qualify for each included study by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RevMan V.5.3 software (London, UK) and Stata V.12.0 software (Texas, USA) will be used to pool the data and to conduct the meta-analysis. RESULTS The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of FFDM will be used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of FFDM for the diagnosis of patients with BC. CONCLUSION Its findings will provide latest evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of FFDM in female patients with BC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42019125338.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tuan Wang
- Department of Radiology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University
| | - Jian-jun Shuai
- Department of Imaging Center, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region
| | - Xing Li
- Department of Nuclear Magnetic
| | - Zhi Wen
- Department of Computed Tomography, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Alison R, Kearins O, Jenkins J, Patnick J, Given-Wilson RM. Impact of Digital Mammography on Cancer Detection and Recall Rates: 11.3 Million Screening Episodes in the English National Health Service Breast Cancer Screening Program. Radiology 2019; 290:629-637. [PMID: 30526360 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018181426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Purpose To report the impact of changing from screen-film mammography to digital mammography (DM) in a large organized national screening program. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected annual screening data from 2009-2010 to 2015-2016 for the 80 facilities of the English National Health Service Breast Cancer Screening Program, together with estimates of DM usage for three time periods, enabled the effect of DM to be measured in a study of 11.3 million screening episodes in women aged 45-70 years (mean age, 59 years). Regression models were used to estimate percentage and absolute change in detection rates due to DM. Results The overall cancer detection rate was 14% greater with DM (P < .001). There were higher rates of detection of grade 1 and 2 invasive cancers (both ductal and lobular), but no change in the detection of grade 3 invasive cancers. The recall rate was almost unchanged by the introduction of DM. At prevalent (first) screening episodes for women aged 45-52 years, DM increased the overall detection rate by 19% (P < .001) and for incident screening episodes in women aged 53-70 years by 13% (P < .001). Conclusion The overall cancer detection rate was 14% greater with digital mammography with no change in recall rates and without confounding by changes in other factors. There was a substantially higher detection of grade 1 and grade 2 invasive cancers, including both ductal and lobular cancers, but no change in the detection of grade 3 invasive cancers. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by C.I. Lee and J.M. Lee in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roger G Blanks
- From the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, England (R.G.B., J.P., R.A.); Cambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Screening QA Service, Public Health England, London, England (O.K.); Breast Screening Programme, Public Health England, London, England (J.J.); and Department of Radiology, St George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.)
| | - Matthew G Wallis
- From the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, England (R.G.B., J.P., R.A.); Cambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Screening QA Service, Public Health England, London, England (O.K.); Breast Screening Programme, Public Health England, London, England (J.J.); and Department of Radiology, St George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.)
| | - Rupert Alison
- From the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, England (R.G.B., J.P., R.A.); Cambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Screening QA Service, Public Health England, London, England (O.K.); Breast Screening Programme, Public Health England, London, England (J.J.); and Department of Radiology, St George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.)
| | - Olive Kearins
- From the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, England (R.G.B., J.P., R.A.); Cambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Screening QA Service, Public Health England, London, England (O.K.); Breast Screening Programme, Public Health England, London, England (J.J.); and Department of Radiology, St George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.)
| | - Jacquie Jenkins
- From the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, England (R.G.B., J.P., R.A.); Cambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Screening QA Service, Public Health England, London, England (O.K.); Breast Screening Programme, Public Health England, London, England (J.J.); and Department of Radiology, St George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.)
| | - Julietta Patnick
- From the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, England (R.G.B., J.P., R.A.); Cambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Screening QA Service, Public Health England, London, England (O.K.); Breast Screening Programme, Public Health England, London, England (J.J.); and Department of Radiology, St George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.)
| | - Rosalind M Given-Wilson
- From the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, England (R.G.B., J.P., R.A.); Cambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Screening QA Service, Public Health England, London, England (O.K.); Breast Screening Programme, Public Health England, London, England (J.J.); and Department of Radiology, St George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.)
| |
Collapse
|