Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advanced Screening Options and Surveillance in Women with Atypical Breast Lesions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atypical Breast Proliferative Lesions and Benign Breast Disease

  • 625 Accesses

Abstract

An integral component in the management of high-risk women is screening for breast cancer. The goal of a screening examination is to detect disease in asymptomatic individuals at an early stage, when treatment may be more effective, less invasive, and/or less expensive. A complete risk assessment may place many women with a history of atypia at an increased risk of breast cancer. Several imaging modalities may be considered for additional screening and surveillance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YC, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–614.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bevers TB, Harris RE, Parker CC, Helvie M, Heerdt AS, Pearlman M, et al. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) [Internet]. June 2, 2017; Version I.2017. Available from: NCCN.org

  3. ACR and SBI continue to recommend regular mammography starting at age 40 [press release]. https://www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/ACR-SBI%20press%20release%20ACS%20FINAL%20for%20web.pdf. October 20, 2015.

  4. Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P, Didwania AD, diFlorio-Alexander RM, Green ED, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® breast cancer screening. Available from: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/70910/Narrative/. American College of Radiology. Accessed 31 Oct 2017.

  5. Practice Bulletin Number 179. Breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(1):e1–e16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55(11):2698–708.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, Frost MH, Sellers TA, Vierkant RA, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2671–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, Lingle WL, Degnim AC, Ghosh K, et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(3):229–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast – risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(1):78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Degnim AC, Dupont WD, Radisky DC, Vierkant RA, Frank RD, Frost MH, et al. Extent of atypical hyperplasia stratifies breast cancer risk in 2 independent cohorts of women. Cancer. 2016;122(19):2971–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(10):680–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A, Lalloo F, Moran A, Boggis C, et al. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet. 2003;40(11):807–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23(7):1111–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):168–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Skaane P. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan). 2017;24(1):32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(1):184–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, Yeow KM, Huang PC, Lo YF, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2394–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):565–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, van Roozendaal L, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Engelken F, Krohn M, Singh JM, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(1):256–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chou CP, Lewin JM, Chiang CL, Hung BH, Yang TL, Huang JS, et al. Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis – comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(12):25018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hobbs MM, Taylor DB, Buzynski S, Peake RE. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): patient preferences and tolerance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015;59(3):300–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. ACR manual on contrast media version 10.3. ACR committee on drugs and contrast media. Available from: https://www.acr.org/~/media/37D84428BF1D4E1B9A3A2918DA9E27A3.pdf. American College of Radiology. Accessed on 31 Oct 2017.

  30. Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, Morris E, Montgomery LL. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(3):1051–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nadler M, Al-Attar H, Warner E, Martel AL, Balasingham S, Zhang L, et al. MRI surveillance for women with dense breasts and a previous breast cancer and/or high risk lesion. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2017;34:77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1394–404.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P, Cawson JN, Morris I, Walleser S, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2007;43(13):1905–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Abramovici G, Mainiero MB. Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies. Radiology. 2011;259(1):85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, Kanal E, Reeder SB. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(7):564–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers R-D, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection—a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(22):2304–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB, Sandhaug M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Stoeblen F. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study. Acta Radiol (Stockholm, Sweden: 1987). 2015;56(4):404–12.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O’Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology. 2011;258(1):106–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Conners AL, Tortorelli CL, Maxwell RW, Jones KN, et al. Journal club: molecular breast imaging at reduced radiation dose for supplemental screening in mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(2):241–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Brem RF, Ruda RC, Yang JL, Coffey CM, Rapelyea JA. Breast-specific gamma-imaging for the detection of mammographically occult breast cancer in women at increased risk. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2016;57(5):678–84.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, Madsen KS, Narayanan D, Tartar M. Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(2):260–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA

    Erin Crane, Nicole Sondel Lewis, Erini Makariou, Janice Jeon, Judy Song & Charlotte Dillis

Authors
  1. Erin Crane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole Sondel Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erini Makariou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Janice Jeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Judy Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Charlotte Dillis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin Crane .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Inst, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Farin Amersi

  2. School of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Kristine Calhoun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Crane, E., Lewis, N.S., Makariou, E., Jeon, J., Song, J., Dillis, C. (2018). Advanced Screening Options and Surveillance in Women with Atypical Breast Lesions. In: Amersi, F., Calhoun, K. (eds) Atypical Breast Proliferative Lesions and Benign Breast Disease . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92657-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92657-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92656-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92657-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation