Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2016

11.07.2016 | Breast Oncology

Dense Breasts: What Do Our Patients Need to Be Told and Why?

verfasst von: Alyssa D. Throckmorton, MD, FACS, Deborah J. Rhodes, MD, Kevin S. Hughes, MD, FACS, Amy C. Degnim, MD, FACS, Diana Dickson-Witmer, MD, FACS

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 10/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

More than 50 % of states have state-mandated density notification for patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts. Increased breast density carries a risk of masking a cancer and delaying diagnosis. Supplemental imaging is optional and often recommended for certain patients. There are no evidence-based consensus guidelines for screening patients with density as their only risk factor. Breast cancer risk assessment and breast cancer prevention strategies should be discussed with women with dense breasts.
Literatur
1.
Cappello NM. Decade of ‘normal’ mammography reports: the happygram. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(12):903–8.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, et al. The relationship of mammographic density and age: implications for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(3):W292–5.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Vachon CM, Sellers TA, Carlson EE, et al. Strong evidence of a genetic determinant for mammographic density, a major risk factor for breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2007;67(17):8412–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(10):dju255.CrossRef
5.
Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer. 1976;37(5):2486–92.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Sickles E, D’Orsi DJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
7.
Redondo A, Comas M, Macia F, et al. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1019):1465–70.
8.
Gard CC, Aiello Bowles EJ, Miglioretti DL, et al. Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation. Breast J. 2015;21(5):481–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Heine JJ, Carston MJ, Scott CG, et al. An automated approach for estimation of breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(11):3090–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Li J, Szekely L, Eriksson L, et al. High-throughput mammographic-density measurement: a tool for risk prediction of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(4):R114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Shepherd JA, Kerlikowske KM, Smith-Bindman R, et al. Measurement of breast density with dual X-ray absorptiometry: feasibility. Radiology. 2002;223(2):554–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Skippage P, Wilkinson L, Allen S, et al. Correlation of age and HRT use with breast density as assessed by Quantra. Breast J. 2013;19(1):79–86.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Price ER, Hargreaves J, Lipson JA, et al. The California breast density information group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation. Radiology. 2013;269(3):887–92.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gierach GL, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K, et al. Relationship between mammographic density and breast cancer death in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(16):1218–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Lisanti MP, Tsirigos A, Pavlides S, et al. JNK1 stress signaling is hyper-activated in high breast density and the tumor stroma: connecting fibrosis, inflammation, and stemness for cancer prevention. Cell Cycle. 2014;13(4):580–99.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Conklin MW, Eickhoff JC, Riching KM, et al. Aligned collagen is a prognostic signature for survival in human breast carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 2011;178(3):1221–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
18.
Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):493–502.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Kelly K, Dean J, Comulada W, et al. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):734–42.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Conners AL, et al. Journal club: molecular breast imaging at reduced radiation dose for supplemental screening in mammographically dense breasts. AJR. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(2):241–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, et al. Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016.
24.
Berg WA. Current status of supplemental screening in dense breasts. J Clin Oncol. 2016.
25.
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(7):583–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
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(1):47–56.CrossRefPubMed
27.
McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Akhtar AL, et al. Baseline screening mammography: performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(5):1143–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Conant EF. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis and digital mammography-reply. JAMA. 2014;312(16):1695–6.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Hendee WR, O’Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology. 2012;264(2):312–21.CrossRefPubMed
30.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Biological mechanisms of radiation actions at low doses. New York: United Nations; 2012.
31.
Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, et al. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology. 2011;258(1):106–18.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Shermis R. Supplemental breast cancer screening with molecular breast imaging in women with dense breast tissue. Am J Roentgenol. 2016.
33.
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, 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.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, et al. 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.CrossRefPubMed
35.
McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;275(3):772–82.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, et al. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(10):673–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Kerlikowske K, Cook AJ, Buist DS, et al. Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(24):3830–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Vachon CM, Kuni CC, Anderson K, et al. Association of mammographically defined percent breast density with epidemiologic risk factors for breast cancer (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2000;11(7):653–62.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, et al. Alcohol and breast cancer in women: a pooled analysis of cohort studies. JAMA. 1998;279(7):535–40.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Harvie M, Howell A, Evans DG. Can diet and lifestyle prevent breast cancer: what is the evidence? American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book/ASCO. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Meeting 2015:e66–73.
41.
Powles TJ, Ashley S, Tidy A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of the Royal Marsden randomized, double-blinded tamoxifen breast cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(4):283–90.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(22):1652–62.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: late results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial among women with hysterectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(9):727–37.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Sestak I, et al. Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer–96-month follow-up of the randomized IBIS-I trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(4):272–82.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Goss PE, Ingle JN, Ales-Martinez JE, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2381–91.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, et al. Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(9):744–52.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Wang AT, Vachon CM, Brandt KR, et al. Breast density and breast cancer risk: a practical review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(4):548–57.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Hollenbeck S, Keely P, Seewaldt V. Mammographic density: intersection of science, the law, and clinical practice. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book/ASCO. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Meeting 2013.
49.
Freer PE, Slanetz PJ, Haas JS, et al. Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153(2):455–64.CrossRefPubMed
50.
An ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63, relative to communication of mammographic breast density information to patients. 2013.
51.
Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7(1):18–27.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Berg W. Screening MRI. In: Berg W (eds). Diagnostic imaging: breast. Salt Lake City: Amirsys; 2014. pp. 9-44–9-49.
53.
Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, et al. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59–69.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Berg W. Screening ultrasound. In: Berg W (ed). Diagnostic imaging: breast. Salt Lake City: Amirsys; 2014. pp. 9-38–9-43.
55.
Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, et al. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401–8.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Brem RF, Tabar L, Duffy SW, 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.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, et al. 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.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Schrading S, Strobel K, Kuhl C. Abstract S1-09: MRI screening of women at average risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2013;73(24 Suppl):S1-09.
59.
Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81(24):1879–86.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 1994;73(3):643–51.PubMed
61.
Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23(7):1111–30.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Parmigiani G, Berry D, Aguilar O. Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62(1):145–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Antoniou AC, Pharoah PP, Smith P, et al. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(8):1580–90.PubMedPubMedCentral
64.
Pankratz VS, Degnim AC, Frank RD, et al. Model for individualized prediction of breast cancer risk after a benign breast biopsy. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(8):923–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Tice JA, Miglioretti DL, Li CS, et al. Breast density and benign breast disease: risk assessment to identify women at high risk of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(28):3137–43.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Daly MB, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian version 2.2016. © 2016 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. Available at: http://​www.​nccn.​org. Accessed 24 Apr 2016.
67.
Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, et al. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(10):680–91.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Pankratz VS, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of the Gail model in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(33):5374–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
Metadaten
Titel
Dense Breasts: What Do Our Patients Need to Be Told and Why?
verfasst von
Alyssa D. Throckmorton, MD, FACS
Deborah J. Rhodes, MD
Kevin S. Hughes, MD, FACS
Amy C. Degnim, MD, FACS
Diana Dickson-Witmer, MD, FACS
Publikationsdatum
11.07.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5400-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Breast Oncology

Editorial: Management Based on Risk: Individualizing the Care of the Breast Cancer Patient

Breast Oncology

Implementing the Prospective Surveillance Model (PSM) of Rehabilitation for Breast Cancer Patients with 1-Year Postoperative Follow-up, a Prospective, Observational Study

Breast Oncology

Oncological and Surgical Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Do Incisions Matter?

Breast Oncology

Outcomes After Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Literature Review

Breast Oncology

Acute and Chronic Complications in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Intraoperative Radiation Therapy

Breast Oncology

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Indications, Contraindications, Risks, Benefits, and Techniques

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren. 

Wie sieht der OP der Zukunft aus?

04.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Der OP in der Zukunft wird mit weniger Personal auskommen – nicht, weil die Technik das medizinische Fachpersonal verdrängt, sondern weil der Personalmangel es nötig macht.

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Recycling im OP – möglich, aber teuer

02.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Auch wenn sich Krankenhäuser nachhaltig und grün geben – sie tragen aktuell erheblich zu den CO2-Emissionen bei und produzieren jede Menge Müll. Ein Pilotprojekt aus Bonn zeigt, dass viele Op.-Abfälle wiederverwertet werden können.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.
Bildnachweise