The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition
This article updates readers as to what is new in the Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition. Breast cancer screening issues are covered, including matters of breast density and possible supplemental modalities, along with appropriate pre-operative/follow-up diagnostic breast imaging tests. Up-to-date clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis should help to provide patients and clinicians with not only evidence-based breast imaging options, but also accurate and balanced information about the benefits and harms of intervention, which ultimately enables shared decision making about imaging test plans.
KeywordsJapanese breast cancer society Clinical practice guidelines Breast cancer screening Breast cancer diagnosis
The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Subcommittee would like to thank all Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee members, experts who co-operate us, and other committees (an expert panel including representative breast cancer survivors, for rating statements, and the evaluating committee).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Dr. Uematsu has nothing to disclose. Dr. Nakashima has nothing to disclose. Dr. Kikuchi has nothing to disclose. Dr. Kubota has nothing to disclose. Dr. Suzuki has nothing to disclose. Dr. Nakano has nothing to disclose. Dr. Hirokaga has nothing to disclose. Dr. YAMAGUCHI has nothing to disclose. Dr. Saji reports grants and personal fees (honoraria for lectures) from Eisai, grants and personal fees from Chugai, grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Taiho, personal fees from Kyowahakko Kirin, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Nihon Kayaku, grants from Ono. Dr. Iwata reports grants and personal fees from Chugai, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants from MSD, grants and personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Kyowa Hakko Kirin, personal fees from Pfizer, during the conduct of the study. However, Dr. Iwata confirms that total fee from each company is not over the limited fee determined by JBCS.
- 1.Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, et al. J-START investigator groups. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial(J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10016):341–8. [PMID:26547101]Google Scholar
- 5.Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(4):539–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images:comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):655–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2061–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(7):1232–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast. 2014;23(1):76–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading–evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(10):1799–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K. Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(9):1554–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.The Japanese HBOC Consortium website. https://hboc.jp/downloads/pamphlet_ver4-1.pdf. (in Japanese).
- 27.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 3. 2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf
- 32.Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al;Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(5):427–37.Google Scholar
- 39.Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology. 2014;270(3):834–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(3):386–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 65.Schouten van der Velden AP, Boetes C, Bult P, Wobbes T. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and size assessment of in situ and small invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2006;192(2):172–8.Google Scholar
- 70.Yabuuchi H, Kuroiwa T, Kusumoto C, Fukuya T, Ohno S, Hachitanda Y. Incidentally detected lesions on contrast-enhanced MR imaging in candidates for breast-conserving therapy: correlation between MR findings and histological diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;23(4):486–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 72.Nakano S, Kousaka J, Fujii K, Yorozuya K, Yoshida M, Mouri Y, et al. Impact of real-time virtual sonography, a coordinated sonography and MRI system that uses an image fusion technique, on the sonographic evaluation of MRI-detected lesions of the breast in second-look sonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(3):1179–88.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 76.Cochet A, Dygai-Cochet I, Riedinger JM, Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Toubeau M, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT provides powerful prognostic stratification in the primary staging of large breast cancer when compared with conventional explorations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(3):428–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 85.Lin NU, Thomssen C, Cardoso F, Cameron D, Cufer T, Fallowfield L, et al;European School of Oncology-Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force. International guidelines for management of metastatic breast cancer(MBC)from the European School of Oncology(ESO)-MBC Task Force:Surveillance, staging, and evaluation of patients with early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Breast. 2013;22(3):203–10.Google Scholar
- 88.Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C, Ciatto S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Distante V, et al. Intensive vs clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer:10-year update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer Follow-up. JAMA. 1999;281(17):1586.Google Scholar
- 95.Sabel MS. Breast conserving therapy. UpToDate. 2017. https://www.uptodate.com/ontents/breast-conserving-therapy#H30
- 97.Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core needle and open surgical biopsy for diagnosis of breast lesions:an update to the 2009 report. Rockville(MD):Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(US);2014Google Scholar
- 98.Bruening W, Schoelles K, Treadwell J, Launders J, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K. Comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy for the diagnosis of breast lesions. Rockville(MD):Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(US);2009.Google Scholar