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 8/2021

04.01.2021 | Breast Oncology

Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions

verfasst von: Tanir M. Allweis, MD, Naama Hermann, MD, Rinat Berenstein-Molho, MD, Michal Guindy, MD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 8/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Ever since screening for early breast cancer (BC) diagnosis was shown to decrease mortality from the disease, screening programs have been widely implemented throughout the world. Targeted age groups and schedules vary between countries but the majority use a population-based approach, regardless of personal BC risk. The purpose of this review was to describe current population-based screening practices, point out some of the shortcomings of these practices, describe BC risk factors and risk assessment models, and present ongoing clinical trials of personalized risk-adapted BC screening. Three ongoing, large-scale, randomized controlled clinical trials (WISDOM in the US, MyPEBS in Europe, and TBST in Italy) were identified through a search of the MEDLINE and US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov) databases. In these trials, women either undergo standard or personalized screening. The trials vary in methods of risk stratification and screening modalities, but all aim to examine whether personalized risk-adapted screening can safely replace the current population-based approach and lead to rates of advanced-stage BC at diagnosis comparable with those of current screening regimens. The results of these trials may change current population-based screening practices.
Literatur
1.
Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P et al. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982;69:349–55.PubMed
2.
Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ .1992;147:1459–76.
3.
Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50–59 years. CMAJ. 1992;147:1477–88.
4.
Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;(22):63–7.CrossRef
5.
Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1:829–32.
6.
Frisell J, Lidbrink E, Hellstrom L, Rutqvist LE. Followup after 11 years–update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997;45:263–70.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. The Edinburgh randomised trial of breast cancer screening: results after 10 years of follow-up. Br J Cancer. 1994;70:542–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Warwick J, et al. The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial. Cancer. 2003;97:2387–96.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347–60.
10.
Tabár L, Dean PB, Chen TH, et al. The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening. Cancer, 2019;125:515–23.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Ballard-Barbash R, Klabunde C, Paci E, et al. Breast cancer screening in 21 countries: delivery of services, notification of results and outcomes ascertainment. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1999;8:417–26.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Altobelli E, Lattanzi A. Breast cancer in European Union: an update of screening programmes as of March 2014 (review). Int J Oncol. 2014;45:1785–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7:1060–96.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Siu AL. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:279–96.
15.
Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Abraham J, et al. Breast Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18:452–78.
16.
Lee CS, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES et al. The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:883–90.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Gur D, Sumkin JH, Hardesty LA, et al. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography. Cancer. 2004;100:1590–94.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1089–96.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, et al. False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:57–66.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, et al. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Johns LE, Moss SM. False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (“Age” trial). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2758–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Roman M, Skaane P, Hofvind S. The cumulative risk of false-positive screening results across screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1639–44.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Singh D, Pitkaniemi J, Malila N, Anttila A. Cumulative risk of false positive test in relation to breast symptoms in mammography screening: a historical prospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159:305–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Dabbous FM, Dolecek TA, Berbaum ML, et al. Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26:397–403.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Román R, Sala M, De La Vega M, et al. Effect of false-positives and women’s characteristics on long-term adherence to breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130:543–52.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Bare M, Tora N, Salas D, et al. Mammographic and clinical characteristics of different phenotypes of screen-detected and interval breast cancers in a nationwide screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154:403–15.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Blanch J, Sala M, Ibanez J, et al. Impact of risk factors on different interval cancer subtypes in a population-based breast cancer screening programme. PLoS One. 2014;9:e110207.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Domingo L, Salas D, Zubizarreta R, et al. Tumor phenotype and breast density in distinct categories of interval cancer: results of population-based mammography screening in Spain. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16:R3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Holm J, Humphreys K, Li J, et al. Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1030–7.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1081–7.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, et al. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:2020–8.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Roubidoux MA, Bailey JE, Wray LA, Helvie MA. Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors. Radiology. 2004;230:42–8.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Rebolj M, Assi V, Brentnall A, et al. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:1559–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Kuhl CK. Abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with dense breast: the EA1141 trial. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20170441.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2091–102.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Kalager M, Adami HO, Bretthauer M, Tamimi RM. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:491–9.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Falk RS, Hofvind S, Skaane P, Haldorsen T. Overdiagnosis among women attending a population-based mammography screening program. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:705–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
39.
Webb ML, Cady B, Michaelson JS, et al. A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened. Cancer. 2014;120:2839–46.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Menarche, menopause, and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis, including 118 964 women with breast cancer from 117 epidemiological studies. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:1141–51.
41.
42.
Ma H, Bernstein L, Pike MC, Ursin G. Reproductive factors and breast cancer risk according to joint estrogen and progesterone receptor status: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Lahmann PH, Hoffmann K, Allen N, et al. Body size and breast cancer risk: findings from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer And Nutrition (EPIC). Int J Cancer. 2004;111:762–71.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Dyrstad SW, Yan Y, Fowler AM, Colditz GA. Breast cancer risk associated with benign breast disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:569–75.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Menes TS, Kerlikowske K, Lange J, et al. Subsequent Breast Cancer Risk Following Diagnosis of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Needle Biopsy. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:36–41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Travis LB, Hill D, Dores GM, et al. Cumulative absolute breast cancer risk for young women treated for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1428–37.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Type and timing of menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence. Lancet. 2019;394:1159–68.
48.
Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:798–808.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.PubMedCrossRef
50.
McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:1159–69.PubMedCrossRef
51.
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;57:75–89.PubMedCrossRef
52.
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;81:1879–86.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 1994;73:643–51.PubMed
54.
Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23:1111–30.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Lee A, Mavaddat N, Wilcox AN, et al. BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med. 2019;21:1708–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Chen S, Wang W, Broman KW, et al. BayesMendel: an R environment for Mendelian risk prediction. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2004;3:Article21.
57.
Brentnall AR, Harkness EF, Astley SM, et al. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:147.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
59.
Easton DF, Pooley KA, Dunning AM, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature. 2007;447:1087–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
Michailidou K, Hall P, Gonzalez-Neira A, et al. Large-scale genotyping identifies 41 new loci associated with breast cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2013;45:353–61, 361e1–2.
61.
Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, et al. Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes. Am J Hum Genet. 2019;104:21–34.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Mavaddat N, Pharoah PD, Michailidou K, et al. Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv036.
63.
Yala A, Lehman C, Schuster T, et al. A Deep Learning Mammography-based Model for Improved Breast Cancer Risk Prediction. Radiology. 2019;292:60–6.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Yuan WH, Hsu HC, Chen YY, Wu CH. Supplemental breast cancer-screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2020;123:673–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
Weinstein SP, Korhonen K, Cirelli C, et al. Abbreviated Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Supplemental Screening of Women With Dense Breasts and Average Risk. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3874–82.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Paci E, Mantellini P, Giorgi Rossi P, et al. Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST) [in Italian]. Epidemiol Prev. 2013;37:317–27.PubMed
67.
Shieh Y, Eklund M, Madlensky L, et al. Breast Cancer Screening in the Precision Medicine Era: Risk-Based Screening in a Population-Based Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(5).
68.
Metadaten
Titel
Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions
verfasst von
Tanir M. Allweis, MD
Naama Hermann, MD
Rinat Berenstein-Molho, MD
Michal Guindy, MD
Publikationsdatum
04.01.2021
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 8/2021
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09426-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2021

Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Melanoma

The Role of Clinical Prediction Tools to Risk Stratify Patients with Melanoma After a Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

ASO Visual Abstract

ASO Visual Abstract: Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Recurrence Pattern in Patients with Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases

ASO Author Reflections

ASO Author Reflections: Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastasis: Are Some Patients Surgical Candidates?

ASO Author Reflections

ASO Author Reflections: Long-Term Impact of Pancreatoduodenectomy on Pancreas-Specific Quality of Life

Endocrine Tumors

Total Thyroidectomy Versus Lobectomy for Thyroid Cancer: Single-Center Data and Literature Review

ASO Author Reflections

ASO Author Reflections: Pretherapeutic Naples Prognostic Score in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

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