|
1
|
Niell BL, Jochelson MS, Amir T, Brown A, Adamson M, Baron P, Bennett DL, Chetlen A, Dayaratna S, Freer PE, Ivansco LK, Klein KA, Malak SF, Mehta TS, Moy L, Neal CH, Newell MS, Richman IB, Schonberg M, Small W, Ulaner GA, Slanetz PJ. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2024; 21:S126-S143. [PMID: 38823941 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.02.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2024] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 06/03/2024]
Abstract
Early detection of breast cancer from regular screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Multiple different imaging modalities may be used to screen for breast cancer. Screening recommendations differ based on an individual's risk of developing breast cancer. Numerous factors contribute to breast cancer risk, which is frequently divided into three major categories: average, intermediate, and high risk. For patients assigned female at birth with native breast tissue, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are the recommended method for breast cancer screening in all risk categories. In addition to the recommendation of mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in high-risk patients, screening with breast MRI is recommended. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bethany L Niell
- Panel Chair, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
| | | | - Tali Amir
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Ann Brown
- Panel Vice Chair, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Megan Adamson
- Clinica Family Health, Lafayette, Colorado; American Academy of Family Physicians
| | - Paul Baron
- Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, New York; American College of Surgeons
| | | | - Alison Chetlen
- Penn State Health Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Sandra Dayaratna
- Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
| | | | | | | | | | - Tejas S Mehta
- UMass Memorial Medical Center/UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Linda Moy
- NYU Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Mary S Newell
- Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia; RADS Committee
| | - Ilana B Richman
- Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Society of General Internal Medicine
| | - Mara Schonberg
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; American Geriatrics Society
| | - William Small
- Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, Illinois; Commission on Radiation Oncology
| | - Gary A Ulaner
- Hoag Family Cancer Institute, Newport Beach, California; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Commission on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
| | - Priscilla J Slanetz
- Specialty Chair, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Spak DA, Foxhall L, Rieber A, Hess K, Helvie M, Whitman GJ. Retrospective Review of a Mobile Mammography Screening Program in an Underserved Population within a Large Metropolitan Area. Acad Radiol 2022; 29 Suppl 1:S173-S179. [PMID: 32763059 PMCID: PMC7855048 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2020] [Revised: 07/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Mobile mammography units provide preventive health care to patients facing barriers to annual screening. This study reviews the outcomes of a mobile mammography service during a recent 5-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective study analyzed the examinations by mobile mammography during a 5-year period (9327 examinations). The patients recalled, biopsies performed, and cancers detected were tallied. The race, age, breast cancer size, lymph node involvement, and metastases were recorded. The positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate metrics were calculated as outlined by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas. RESULTS The program identified cancer in 14 cases (cancer detection rate = 1.5 per 1000 examinations [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.5]) with 11 being invasive. The majority of these cancers were small and of low stage. Lymph node status was determined in 11 of the 14 cases (1 as N1mi, 5 as N0, 4 as N1,1 as N2a). Abnormalities led to 1686 examinations recalled (Recall Rate = 17.8%; PPV 1 = 0.8% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%]). One hundred and one were recommended for biopsy (PPV 2 = 13.9% [95% CI, 8.4%-21.9%]), and 98 pursued biopsy (PPV 3 = 14.3% [95% CI, 8.7%-22.6%]). Patient age ranged from 41 to 67 years with an average of 50.6 years. CONCLUSION The program detected many cancers in an asymptomatic population facing barriers to breast cancer screening. These findings are underscored by the cancers detected at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and support the need for the development of similar programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David A Spak
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030.
| | - Lewis Foxhall
- Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Alyssa Rieber
- Department of General Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kenneth Hess
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mark Helvie
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Gary J Whitman
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Abstract
Breast cancer screening is a recognized tool for early detection of the disease in asymptomatic women, improving treatment efficacy and reducing the mortality rate. There is raised awareness that a "one-size-fits-all" approach cannot be applied for breast cancer screening. Currently, despite specific guidelines for a minority of women who are at very high risk of breast cancer, all other women are still treated alike. This article reviews the current recommendations for breast cancer risk assessment and breast cancer screening in average-risk and higher-than-average-risk women. Also discussed are new developments and future perspectives for personalized breast cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carolina Rossi Saccarelli
- Breast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA; Department of Radiology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Rua Dona Adma Jafet 91, São Paulo, SP 01308-050, Brazil
| | - Almir G V Bitencourt
- Breast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA; Department of Imaging, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Prof. Antônio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, SP 01509-010, Brazil
| | - Elizabeth A Morris
- Breast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Seidenwurm D, Breslau J. Diagnostic Outcomes of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography. Radiology 2017; 284:610-611. [DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170758] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- David Seidenwurm
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Sutter Health, 1500 Expo Pkwy, Sacramento, CA 95815
| | - Jonathan Breslau
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Sutter Health, 1500 Expo Pkwy, Sacramento, CA 95815
| |
Collapse
|