Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening of Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Breast Cancer, a Heterogeneous Disease Entity

Abstract

In the randomized controlled trials carried out in the late 1970s and the 1980s, mammographic screening was demonstrated to have an impact in decreasing mortality from breast cancer. The evaluation of mammographic service screening programmes implemented in several Western European countries in the late 1980s and the 1990s demonstrated that these programmes may have an even higher effect on breast cancer mortality than indicated in the randomized controlled trials. Breast cancer is in most cases a progressive disease, and early detection may arrest its progression. Consequently, earlier detection of breast cancers in their preclinical stage can be expected to lower the breast cancer mortality rate. To achieve this goal, high-quality organized mammographic screening is essential. The prerequisites for high-quality screening mammography are dedicated screening units, a multidisciplinary approach, including the team work of radiologists, pathologists, surgeons and oncologists, and ongoing quality assurance of the performance indicators of the screening program. The detection of early breast cancers, i.e. non-palpable ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancers measuring less than 15 mm, is a great challenge for the radiologist, as illustrated by the major problems of interobserver variability and discordant interpretations in organized screening programmes with double reading. Since the effect of screening on the breast cancer mortality rate can be demonstrated only after some years, the ongoing evaluation of performance indicators according to the European Guidelines is of utmost importance.

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

  • Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F et al (1988) Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo Mammographic screening trial. BMJ 297:943–948

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P et al (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker LH (1982) Breast cancer detection demonstration project: five year summary report. CA 32:196–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Warwick J, Sala E, Duffy SW, Nystrom L et al (2003) The Gothenburg breast screening trial. Cancer 97:2387–2396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Duenser M (2000) Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 21:325–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collette HJA, Day NE, Rombach JJ, de Waard F (1984) Evaluation of screening for breast cancer in a non-randomized study (the DOM project) by means of a case-control study. Lancet I:1224–1226

    Google Scholar 

  • Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O et al (2008) 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 44:539–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Waard F, Kirkpatrick A, Perry NM, Tornberg S, Tubiana M, de Wolf C (1994) Breast cancer screening in the framework of the Europe against cancer programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 3(Suppl 1):3–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, Holmqvist M, Yen MF, Abdsalah S et al (2002) The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast cancer mortality in seven Swedish counties. A collaborative evaluation. Cancer 95:458–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy SW, Tabar L, Olsen AH, Vitak B, Allgood PC, Chen THH et al (2010) Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen 17:25–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans A, Clements K, Maxwell A, Bishop H, Hanby A, Lawrence G et al (2010) Lesion size is a major determinant of the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the Sloane project. Clin Radiol 65:181–184

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R et al (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freer TW, Ulissey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781–786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frisell J, Eklund G, Hellstrom L, Lidbrink E, Rutqvist LE, Somell A (1991) Randomized study of mammography screening—preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 18:49–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gabe R, Tryggvadottir L, Sigfusson B, Olafsdottir G, Sigurdsson K, Duffy S (2007) A case-control study to estimate the impact of the Icelandic population-based mammography screening program on breast cancer death. Acta Radiol 48:948–955

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gershon-Cohen J, Ingleby H (1958) Roentgen survey of asymptomatic breasts. Surgery 3:408–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershon-Cohen J, Hermel MB, Berger SM (1961) Detection of breast cancer by periodic X-ray examinations: a five-year survey. JAMA 176:1114–1116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MGC, Agbaje OF, Wallis MG, James J et al (2008) Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359:1675–1684

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gold RH, Bassett LW, Widoff BE (1990) Highlights from the history of mammography. RadioGraphics 10:1111–1131

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM et al (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. Am J Roentgenol 190:865–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall FM (2010) Identification, biopsy, and treatment of poorly understood premalignant, in situ, and indolent low-grade cancers: are we becoming victims of our own success? Radiology 254:655–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. Am J Roentgenol 193:1010–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heddson B, Roennow K, Olsson M, Miller D (2007) Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 64:419–425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention (2002) Volume 7: Breast cancer screening. Chapter 3: Use of breast cancer screening. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 47–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Juel I-M, Skaane P, Hoff SR, Johannessen G, Hofvind S (2010) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening program: the Sogn and Fjordane study. Acta Radiol 51:962–968

    Google Scholar 

  • Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R et al (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253:353–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kopans DB (2004) Sonography should not be used for breast cancer screening until its efficacy has been proven scientifically. Am J Roentgenol 182:489–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopans DB (2010) The 2009 U.S. preventive services task force guidelines ignore important scientific evidence and should be revised or withdrawn. Radiology 256:15–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kriege M, Brekelmans CTM, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM et al (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lipasti S, Anttila A, Pamilo M (2010) Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening program. Acta Radiol 51:491–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992a) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40–49. Can Med Assoc J 147:1459–1476

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992b) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50–59. Can Med Assoc J 147:1477–1494

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moral Aldaz A, Aupee M, Batal-Steil S, Cecchini S, Chamberlain J, Ciatto S et al (1994) Cancer screening in the European Union. Eur J Cancer 30A:860–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen AH, Njor SH, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Dalgaard P, Jensen MB et al (2005) Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after introduction of mammography screening: cohort study. BMJ 330:220–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palli D, Del Turco MR, Buiatti E, Carli S, Ciatto S, Toscani L et al (1986) A case-control study of the efficacy of a non-randomized breast cancer screening program in Florence (Italy). Int J Cancer 38:501–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (eds) (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Communities. European Commission, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Petitti DB, Calonge N, LeFevre ML, Melnyk BM, Wilt TJ, Schwartz JS (2010) Breast cancer screening: from science to recommendation. Radiology 256:8–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Chetty U, Donnan PT, Forrest P et al (1990) Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet 335:241–246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252:31–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L (1971) Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA 215:1777–1785

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S, Venet W, Venet L, Roeser R (1982) Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 69:349–355

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BS, Colburn WJ et al (1996) A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 77:2267–2274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading: The Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study. Radiology 237:37–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S, Young K, Castellino RA (2007) Effect of computer- aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol 188:377–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Fagerberg CJG, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Grontoft O et al (1985) Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Lancet I:829–832

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HHT, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA (2001) Beyond randomized controlled trials. Organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91:1724–1731

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2003) Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 361:1405–1410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Chen HHT, Yen MFA, Tot T, Tung TH, Chen LS et al (2004) Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14 mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 101:1745–1759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Tot T, Dean PB (2007) Breast cancer: early detection with mammography. Casting type calcifications: sign of a subtype with deceptive features. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Tot T, Dean PB (2008) Breast cancer: early detection with mammography. Crushed stone-like calcifications: the most frequent malignant type. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R, Mravunac M, Sturmans F, Day NE (1984) Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography: first results of the Nijmegen project, 1975–1981. Lancet I:1222–1224

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, dos Santos Silva I (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren R, Eleti A (2006) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: is overdiagnosis an issue for radiologists? Breast Cancer Res 8:205. doi:10.1186/bcr1396

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M, Schwab SA, Uder M, Schulz-Wendtland R et al (2008) Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification—a pilot study. Fortschr Roentgenstr 180:804–808

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yen MF, Tabar L, Vitak B, Smith RA, Chen HH, Duffy SW (2003) Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 39:1746–1754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Ullevaal University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, 0407, Oslo, Norway

    Per Skaane

Authors
  1. Per Skaane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Skaane .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , University of Szeged, Department of Oncotherapy, Korányi fasor 12, Szeged, 6720, Hungary

    Zsuzsanna Kahán

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skaane, P. (2011). Screening of Breast Cancer. In: Kahán, Z. (eds) Breast Cancer, a Heterogeneous Disease Entity. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0489-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation