PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2017; 39(10): 569-575
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1606348
Special Article
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Breast Cancer Screening: Updated Recommendations of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Breast Disease Society, and Brazilian Federation of Gynecological and Obstetrical Associations[*]

Recomendações do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem, da Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia e da Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia para o rastreamento do câncer de mama*
Linei Augusta Brolini Dellê Urban
1   Coordinator of the National Mammography Commission, Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Luciano Fernandes Chala
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Selma di Pace Bauab
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Marcela Brisighelli Schaefer
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Radiá Pereira dos Santos
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Norma Medicis de Albuquerque Maranhão
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Ana Lucia Kefalas
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
José Michel Kalaf
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Carlos Alberto Pecci Ferreira
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Ellyete de Oliveira Canella
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
João Emílio Peixoto
2   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Heverton Leal Ernesto de Amorim
3   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia (SBM), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Helio Sebastião Amâncio de Camargo Junior
4   Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Febrasgo), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

25. April 2017

26. April 2017

Publikationsdatum:
16. Oktober 2017 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Introduction

In several countries, organized screening programs have led to a reduction in breast cancer mortality.[1] [2] In Brazil, despite all efforts, there has been an increase in the incidence of and mortality associated with breast cancer.[3] [4] [5] One peculiarity of breast cancer in Brazil and in other developing countries is that its incidence in women between 40 and 50 years of age is proportionately higher than that reported for developed countries.[6] [7] [8]

Programs that aim to standardize breast cancer screening guidelines, as well as to educate the population regarding the importance of such screening, should be promoted. In 2012, the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR, Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging), the Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia (SBM, Brazilian Breast Disease Society), and the Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Febrasgo, Brazilian Federation of Gynecological and Obstetrical Associations), via the Brazilian National Mammography Commission, published their joint recommendations for breast cancer screening in Brazil.[9]

The purpose of this article is to present an update of those recommendations, based on the most recent and relevant scientific data on the subject.

* Study conducted by the National Mammography Commission of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, by the Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia (SBM), São Paulo, SP, and by the Nacional Mammography Commission of Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Febrasgo), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. This article, which is the product of a joint effort of the CBR, SBM, and Febrasgo, will be published in all three of the respective journals. It must be cited as Urban LA, Chala LF, Bauab SP et al. Breast Cancer Screening: update recommendations (...) Associations. Radiol Bras 2017;50(4):244–249 (DOI 10.1590/0100-3984.2017-0069).


 

  • References

  • 1 Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM. , et al. Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA 2015; 314 (15) 1615-1634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Feig SA. Screening mammography benefit controversies: sorting the evidence. Radiol Clin North Am 2014; 52 (03) 455-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gonzaga CM, Freitas-Junior R, Souza MR, Curado MP, Freitas NM. Disparities in female breast cancer mortality rates between urban centers and rural areas of Brazil: ecological time-series study. Breast 2014; 23 (02) 180-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Freitas-Junior R, Rodrigues DCN, Corrêa RD, Peixoto JE, de Oliveira HV, Rahal RM. Contribution of the Unified Health Care System to mammography screening in Brazil, 2013. Radiol Bras 2016; 49 (05) 305-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Badan GM, Roveda Júnior D, Ferreira CAP, de Noronha Junior OA. Complete internal audit of a mammography service in a reference institution for breast imaging. Radiol Bras 2014; 47 (02) 74-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM. , et al. Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2011; 378 (9801): 1461-1484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Martins E, Freitas-Junior R, Curado MP, Freitas NM, De Oliveira JC, Silva CM. [Temporal evolution of breast cancer stages in a population-based cancer registry in the Brazilian central region]. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2009; 31 (05) 219-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 De Castro Mattos JS, Mauad EC, Syrjänen K. , et al. The impact of breast cancer screening among younger women in the Barretos Region, Brazil. Anticancer Res 2013; 33 (06) 2651-2655
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Urban LABD, Schaefer MB, Duarte DL. , et al. Recommendations of Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem, Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia, and Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia for imaging screening for breast cancer. Radiol Bras 2012; 45: 334-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Centre for Evidence Based-Medicine. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - levels of evidence . 2009 http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009 . Accessed March, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. , et al; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336 (7650): 924-926 . Doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tarone RE. The excess of patients with advanced breast cancer in young women screened with mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1995; 75 (04) 997-1003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH. , et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011; 260 (03) 658-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012; 380 (9855): 1778-1786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (06) CD001877
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Breast cancer screening: benefit or harm?. JAMA 2016; 315 (13) 1402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tabar L, Chen TH, Hsu CY. , et al. Evaluation issues in the Swedish Two-County Trial of breast cancer screening: An historical review. J Med Screen 2017; 24 (01) 27-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Villar VCFL, Seta MH, de Andrade CL, Delamarque EV, de Azevedo AC. Evolution of mammographic image quality in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Radiol Bras 2015; 48 (02) 86-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. ; Trial Management Group. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368 (9552): 2053-2060
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S. , et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 2011; 117 (04) 714-722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jonsson H, Bordás P, Wallin H, Nyström L, Lenner P. Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality - an update. J Med Screen 2007; 14 (02) 87-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hartman M, Drotman M, Arleo EK. Annual screening mammography for breast cancer in women 75 years old or older: to screen or not to screen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204 (05) 1132-1136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Walter LC, Schonberg MA. Screening mammography in older women: a review. JAMA 2014; 311 (13) 1336-1347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sung JS, Dershaw DD. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for screening high-risk women. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2013; 21 (03) 509-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Phi XA, Saadatmand S, De Bock GH. , 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 (06) 631-637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 França LKL, Bitencourt AGV, Paiva HLS. , et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the planning of breast cancer treatment strategies: comparison with conventional imaging techniques. Radiol Bras 2017; 50 (02) 76-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P. , 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 2007; 43 (13) 1905-1917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Riedl CC, Luft N, Bernhart C. , et al. Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33 (10) 1128-1135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S. , 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 (09) 1450-1457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bitencourt AG. Subdividing BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions observed on magnetic resonance imaging: Is it feasible?. Radiol Bras 2016; 49 (03) V
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Elkin EB, Klem ML, Gonzales AM. , et al. Characteristics and outcomes of breast cancer in women with and without a history of radiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma: a multi-institutional, matched cohort study. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29 (18) 2466-2473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ng AK, Garber JE, Diller LR. , et al. Prospective study of the efficacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic screening in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (18) 2282-2288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sung JS, Malak SF, Bajaj P, Alis R, Dershaw DD, Morris EA. Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology 2011; 261 (02) 414-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Badan GM, Roveda Júnior D, Piato S. , et al. Diagnostic underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ at percutaneous core needle and vacuum-assisted biopsies of the breast in a Brazilian reference institution. Radiol Bras 2016; 49 (01) 6-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Smith RA, Andrews K, Brooks D. , et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2016: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66 (02) 96-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Houssami N, Abraham LA, Kerlikowske K. , et al. Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013; 22 (05) 946-961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gweon HM, Cho N, Han W. , et al. Breast MR imaging screening in women with a history of breast conservation therapy. Radiology 2014; 272 (02) 366-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Giess CS, Poole PS, Chikarmane SA, Sippo DA, Birdwell RL. Screening breast MRI in patients previously treated for breast cancer: diagnostic yield for cancer and abnormal interpretation rate. Acad Radiol 2015; 22 (11) 1331-1337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Houssami N, Bernardi D, Pellegrini M. , et al. Breast cancer detection using single-reading of breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) compared to double-reading of 2D-mammography: Evidence from a population-based trial. Cancer Epidemiol 2017; 47: 94-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R. , et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267 (01) 47-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D. , et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14 (07) 583-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL. , et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014; 311 (24) 2499-2507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG. , et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess 2015; 19 (04) i-xxv , 1–136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL. , et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016; 156 (01) 109-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Freer PE, Winkler N. Synthesized digital mammography imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2017; 55 (03) 503-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar