The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition

  • Takayoshi UematsuEmail author
  • Kazutaka Nakashima
  • Mari Kikuchi
  • Kazunori Kubota
  • Akihiko Suzuki
  • Shogo Nakano
  • Kouichi Hirokaga
  • Ken Yamaguchi
  • Shigehira Saji
  • Hiroji Iwata
Special Article


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.


Japanese 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. 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
  2. 2.
    Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ghirardi M, Ferrari A, Speziani M, Bellarosa S, et al. Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(7):1021–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bergonzini R, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med. 2006;111(3):440–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts:initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09–41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):157–66.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hodgson R, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Harvey SC, Edwards M, Shaikh J, Arber M, et al. Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast. 2016;27:52–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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
  10. 10.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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
  13. 13.
    Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R. Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4:9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2015;274(2):337–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF, Copit DS, Friedewald SM, Plecha DM, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and nondense breasts. JAMA. 2016;315(16):1784–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology. 2015;274(3):772–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalra VB, Wu X, Haas BM, Forman HP, Philpotts LE. Cost-effectiveness of tomosynthesis in annual screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(5):1152–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH. Current status of automated breast ultrasonography. Version 2. Ultrasonography. 2015;34(3):165–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automate whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):734–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giuliano V, Giuliano C. Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging. 2013;37(3):480–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brem RF, Tabar L, Duffy SW, Inciardi MF, Guingrich JA, Hashimoto BE, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology. 2015;274(3):663–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 26.
    The Japanese HBOC Consortium website. (in Japanese).
  27. 27.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 3. 2019.
  28. 28.
    Evans DG, Harkness EF, Howell A, Wilson M, Hurley E, Holmen MM, et al. Intensive breast screening in BRCA2 mutation carriers is associated with reduced breast cancer specific and all cause mortality. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2016;14:8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evans DG, Kesavan N, Lim Y, Gadde S, Hurley E, Massat NJ, et al. MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(3):663–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, Beex L, Bult P, Hendriks JH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(14):1095–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, Catzavelos GC, Di Prospero LS, Yaffe MJ, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(15):3524–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 33.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292(11):1317–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Boetes C, Loo CE, et al. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC screening study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(36):5265–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Trop I, Lalonde L, Mayrand MH, David J, Larouche N, Provencher D. Multimodality breast cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Curr Oncol. 2010;17(3):28–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, Arand B, Bieling H, Konig R, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer:the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1450–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Phi XA, Saadatmand S, De Bock GH, Warner E, Sardanelli F, Leach MO, et al. Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(6):631–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsushima Y, Ishiguchi T, Murakami T, Hayashi H, Hayakawa K, Fukuda K, et al. Safe use of iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast media in current practice in Japan: a questionnaire survey. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34(2):130–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 40.
    Liu B, Zheng Y, Huang G, Lin M, Shan Q, Lu Y, et al. Quantitative diagnosis using ultrasound shear wave elastography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(4):835–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu B, Zheng Y, Shan Q, Lu Y, Lin M, Tian W, et al. Elastography by acoustic radiation force impulse technology for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions:a meta-analysis. J Med Ultrason(2001). 2016;43(1):47–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen L, He J, Liu G, Shao K, Zhou M, Li B, et al. Diagnostic performances of shear-wave elastography for identification of malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Jpn J Radiol. 2014;32(10):592–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Dwamena BA. Accuracy of quantitative ultrasound elastography for differentiation of malignant and benign breast abnormalities: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(3):923–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Dwamena BA. Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: a meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):23–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li G, Li DW, Fang YX, Song YJ, Deng ZJ, Gao J, et al. Performance of shear wave elastography for differentiation of benign and malignant solid breast masses. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e76322.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Wojcinski S, Dwamena BA. Impact of breast mass size on accuracy of ultrasound elastography vs. conventional B-mode ultrasound:a meta-analysis of individual participants. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(4):1006–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gong X, Xu Q, Xu Z, Xiong P, Yan W, Chen Y. Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions:a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130(1):11–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lee SH, Chung J, Choi HY, Choi SH, Ryu EB, Ko KH, et al. Evaluation of screening US-detected breast masses by combined use of elastography and color doppler US with B-mode US in women with dense breasts: a multicenter prospective study. Radiology. 2017;285(2):660–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nakashima K, Mizutou A, Sakurai S. Auto strain ratio system for the quality control of breast strain elastography. J Med Ultrason(2001). 2018; 45(2): 261‒8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fischer U, Zachariae O, Baum F, von Heyden D, Funke M, Liersch T. The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(10):1725–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 53.
    Hwang N, Schiller DE, Crystal P, Maki E, McCready DR. Magnetic resonance imaging in the planning of initial lumpectomy for invasive breast carcinoma: its effect on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conservation therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(11):3000–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Miller BT, Abbott AM, Tuttle TM. The influence of preoperative MRI on breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):536–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ko ES, Han BK, Kim RB, Ko EY, Shin JH, Nam SY, et al. Analysis of the effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the outcome in women undergoing breast conservation surgery with radiation therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107(8):815–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Houssami N, Turner R, Macaskill P, Turnbull LW, McCready DR, Tuttle TM, et al. An individual person data meta-analysis of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(5):392–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sung JS, Li J, Da Costa G, Patil S, Van Zee KJ, Dershaw DD, et al. Preoperative breast MRI for early-stage breast cancer: effect on surgical and long-term outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):1376–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yi A, Cho N, Yang KS, Han W, Noh DY, Moon WK. Breast cancer recurrence in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer without and with preoperative MR imaging: a matched cohort study. Radiology. 2015;276(3):695–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ryu J, Park HS, Kim S, Kim JY, Park S, Kim SI. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and survival outcomes in T1–2 breast cancer patients who receive breast-conserving therapy. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(4):423–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gervais MK, Maki E, Schiller DE, Crystal P, McCready DR. Preoperative MRI of the breast and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: long-term follow up. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115(3):231–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995;197(3):743–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    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(1):110–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Amano G, Ohuchi N, Ishibashi T, Ishida T, Amari M, Satomi S. Correlation of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with precise histopathological map concerning carcinoma extension in the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;60(1):43–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2005;11(6):382–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. 66.
    Santamaria G, Velasco M, Farrus B, Zanon G, Fernandez PL. Preoperative MRI of pure intraductal breast carcinoma–a valuable adjunct to mammography in assessing cancer extent. Breast. 2008;17(2):186–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;112(3):461–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nori J, Meattini I, Giannotti E, Abdulcadir D, Mariscotti G, Calabrese M, et al. Role of preoperative breast MRI in ductal carcinoma in situ for prediction of the presence and assessment of the extent of occult invasive component. Breast J. 2014;20(3):243–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology. 2008;246(1):116–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 71.
    Tozaki M, Yamashiro N, Sakamoto M, Sakamoto N, Mizuuchi N, Fukuma E. Magnetic resonance-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results in 100 Japanese women. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28(7):527–33.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 73.
    Uematsu T, Takahashi K, Nishimura S, Watanabe J, Yamasaki S, Sugino T, et al. Real-time virtual sonography examination and biopsy for suspicious breast lesions identified on MRI alone. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(4):1064–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kim JY, Cho N, Koo HR, Yi A, Kim WH, Lee SH, et al. Unilateral breast cancer:screening of contralateral breast by using preoperative MR imaging reduces incidence of metachronous cancer. Radiology. 2013;267(1):57–66.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Brennan ME, Houssami N. Evaluation of the evidence on staging imaging for detection of asymptomatic distant metastases in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast. 2012;21(2):112–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. 77.
    Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Guhlmann A, Santjohanser C, Horster T, Nussle K, et al. Fluorine-18 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with the standard staging procedures. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28(3):351–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Groheux D, Moretti JL, Baillet G, Espie M, Giacchetti S, Hindie E, et al. Effect of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with clinical stage II and III breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(3):695–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Riegger C, Herrmann J, Nagarajah J, Hecktor J, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, et al. Whole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(5):852–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Jeong YJ, Kang DY, Yoon HJ, Son HJ. Additional value of F-18FDG PET/CT for initial staging in breast cancer with clinically negative axillary nodes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(1):137–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bernsdorf M, Berthelsen AK, Wielenga VT, Kroman N, Teilum D, Binderup T, et al. Preoperative PET/CT in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(9):2277–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Riedl CC, Slobod E, Jochelson M, Morrow M, Goldman DA, Gonen M, et al. Retrospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients younger than 40 years. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(10):1578–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Chen X, Sun L, Cong Y, Zhang T, Lin Q, Meng Q, et al. Baseline staging tests based on molecular subtype is necessary for newly diagnosed breast cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2014;33:28.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Schnipper LE, Smith TJ, Raghavan D, Blayney DW, Ganz PA, Mulvey TM, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(14):1715–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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
  86. 86.
    Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. The GIVIO Investigators. JAMA. 1994;271(20):1587–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA. 1994;271(20):1593–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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
  89. 89.
    Ogawa Y, Ikeda K, Izumi T, Okuma S, Ichiki M, Ikeya T, et al. First indicators of relapse in breast cancer: evaluation of the follow-up program at our hospital. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18(3):447–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Puglisi F, Fontanella C, Numico G, Sini V, Evangelista L, Monetti F, et al. Follow-up of patients with early breast cancer: is it time to rewrite the story? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2014;91(2):130–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hojo T, Masuda N, Mizutani T, Shibata T, Kinoshita T, Tamura K, et al. Intensive vs. Standard Post-Operative Surveillance in High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients(INSPIRE):Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1204. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(10):983–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays:estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363(9406):345–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078–86.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Chun K, Velanovich V. Patient-perceived cosmesis and satisfaction after breast biopsy: comparison of stereotactic incisional, excisional, and wire-localized biopsy techniques. Surgery. 2002;131(5):497–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sabel MS. Breast conserving therapy. UpToDate. 2017.
  96. 96.
    Estourgie SH, Valdés Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, Hoefnagel CA, Rutgers EJ, et al. Excision biopsy of breast lesions changes the pattern of lymphatic drainage. Br J Surg. 2007;94(9):1088–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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. 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
  99. 99.
    Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K, Treadwell JR, Launders J, Schoelles K. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(4):238–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takayoshi Uematsu
    • 1
    • 11
    • 12
    Email author
  • Kazutaka Nakashima
    • 2
    • 11
  • Mari Kikuchi
    • 3
    • 11
  • Kazunori Kubota
    • 4
    • 11
  • Akihiko Suzuki
    • 5
    • 11
  • Shogo Nakano
    • 6
    • 11
  • Kouichi Hirokaga
    • 7
    • 11
  • Ken Yamaguchi
    • 8
    • 11
  • Shigehira Saji
    • 9
    • 12
  • Hiroji Iwata
    • 10
    • 12
  1. 1.Division of Breast Imaging and Breast Intervention RadiologyShizuoka Cancer CenterShizuokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryKawasaki Medical School General Medical CenterOkayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic ImagingCancer Institute HospitalTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyDokkyo Medical University HospitalTochigiJapan
  5. 5.Department of Breast and Endocrine SurgeryTohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical UniversitySendaiJapan
  6. 6.Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of SurgeryAichi Medical UniversityAichiJapan
  7. 7.Department of Breast SurgeryHyogo Cancer CenterHyogoJapan
  8. 8.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineSaga UniversitySagaJapan
  9. 9.Department of Medical OncologyFukushima Medical UniversityFukushimaJapan
  10. 10.Department of Breast OncologyAichi Cancer Center HospitalNagoyaJapan
  11. 11.The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis SubcommitteeTokyoJapan
  12. 12.The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines CommitteeTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations