There are few areas in imaging specifically and in medicine in general, fraught with more controversy than screening for breast cancer. Due to the emotive issues surrounding the diagnosis, the scientific literature on breast screening and its issues reaches the lay press quickly and is sometimes reproduced in non scientific, often potentially inaccurate terms.
This debate is potentially interminable (and as such out of the scope of this site and its aims) so this is the radiological perspective from a source that has been doing senology in real life for almost 25 years.
Mammography is not a perfect study and it does not find all cancers in all women. But until a cure is found, this is the best universally available tool we have to find breast cancers reliably and reproducibly early in the disease process.
The rationale behind screening
The rationale behind screening for breast cancer is the universally accepted dictum that (all other factors being equal) early diagnosis results in increased survival. The smaller the cancer at the time of diagnosis, the better the 5 year survival of breast cancer.
In general, if a breast cancer is found at less than a 1cm diameter, the 5 year survival is the same as the general population at large. Screening for breast cancer is cost and risk effective, feasible and evidence based.
Many involved in the current discussion on "over-diagnosis" have not had the advantage of seeing the development and evolution of therapy in breast cancer. The increased survival in breast cancer is due in part to earlier diagnosis but also improved treatment. For those who want to read and ponder an insightful review of how far we have come since the 1960's, reference 12 is a very insightful succinct review of the state of mammography from one of the pioneers in the field, Dr Ed Sickles.
The perviously used radical surgical therapies for breast cancer are now a thing of the past. Lymphoedema used to be a very significant, dreaded complication of mastectomy and is now a rare occurrence in clinical practice.
Not only are more women surviving this disease, they are doing it with cosmetically acceptable results that do not degrade and mutilate them in an effort to ensure survival. This is a direct and undeniable result of the use of screening mammography. This fact does not enter into the ding dong Battle of Articles which dominates the literature. Women now return to the world to resume their lives fully and live out productive lives without the radical surgical interventions previously used to try and stem the disease and its results.
The initial literature support came form the Two Counties Trial in Sweden. Follow up for the trial participants continues and the data support the continued use of screening to detect breast cancer at an early stage when the therapy is potentially curative and cosmetically acceptable. The Two Counties trail and the subsequent Health Insurance Plan (HIP) study in New York showed a decrease in deaths from breast cancer in those aged 40-74. A direct result of the HIP study was that screening was introduced in the USA.
Since screening was introduced in the US, the mortality rate from breast cancer has declined by 30%; it had stayed constant from the Second World War.
The concept of risk
As it pertains to screening and breast cancer, there is significant confusion among the general population and many professionals about the concept of risk.
Depending on which source you use, about 10% of the breast cancers seen have a positive first line family history of breast cancer. This means that 90% or more of the cases will be spontaneous mutations with no family history.
A common occurrence seen regularly is the reaction when someone is told they have a breast malignancy and invariably the reaction is "but I don't have a family history" or "no one in my family has breast cancer". This unfortunate state of affairs is further compounded by the potentially term "average risk" when used in the context of breast cancer. This is a misnomer. Women with a positive family history are at exceptional risk; women with no family history are at risk because of their gender. The unthinking use of "average risk" inadvertently implies that we should concentrate our efforts at the 10% or that the 90% with no history can somehow relax and not get breast imaging. We cannot ignore the 90% of the population who would otherwise have a false sense of security under the umbrella of "average" risk. There is no such thing.
What about those under 50?
As a general rule, biologically, cancers in younger women tend to grow faster and hence metastasize earlier. The lag period in the time before a lesion is picked up is therefore potentially shorter in women under 50 than in post menopausal women. Some of the cancers seen in screening in those over 50 were actually potentially diagnosable when the patient was under 5010.
The downside of the interminable debate is that it confuses patients and their physicians with contradictory news reports and literature bombarding them from all sides. It detracts energy and resources away from the issue at hand which is to find a cure for this disease.
Criteria for a screening test
There are three steps necessary to prove that screening mammography is effective in breast cancer7:
1. The test can find cancers when they are smaller than without the test: mammography has succeeded here without doubt. To such an extent that the new buzzword of "overdiagnosis" has now arisen.
2. randomized, controlled trials must show a reduction in mortality: there is no argument here in the accepted medical literature. Seven trials have demonstrated this2,9.
3. when the test is introduced into the general population, the death rate declines: the number of deaths per thousand of the population. Screening mammography has reduced the death rate of women8,9.
This is the newest challenge to the use of screening mammography to save lives and give potentially curative, cosmetically acceptable therapy to the second biggest killer of women worldwide. In many respects "overdiagnosis" is likely also applicable with other malignancies like prostate. Almost predictably, breast screening is highlighted.
The definition of overdiagnosis is epidemiologic not pathologic i.e. a breast cancer (or prostate) would not have been diagnosed during a patient's lifetime if screening had not taken place. Unfortunately, there are no pathological or imaging features to distinguish the progressive cancers we see, manage every day and which we know will likely kill eventually from those that are non-progressive and do not eventually kill the patient. In practical terms, overdiagnosis will likely represent cases of low grade DCIS and those cases of indolent IDC that on review were actually present on mammograms of years ago but only now diagnoses for whatever reason (as a general rule, the rate of growth of an IDC can be an indication of how aggressive the tumour is ). All radiologists have seen cancers like this: they have been there for years in an invariably elderly lady and they don't seem to change much with time. Maybe we need to re evaluate how we manage confirmed low grade DCIS or smal slow growing indolent cancers is elderly patients with co-morbid conditions.
Some breast cancers will not kill. In autopsy series, up to 2% of female autopsies have breast cancer. But the cancers that will not kill are not only those we find on screening; they also include large palpable cancers11.
For a comprehensive overview of the current thinking on breast screening, there is a wonderful, comprehensive review supplement in the Journal of Medical Screening Sept 212. Its well worth owning and reading if this is your field of work. Highly recommended14
Breast imaging and pathology
- breast screening
- breast imaging and the technologist
- forbidden (check) areas in mammography
- craniocaudal view
- mediolateral oblique view
- additional (supplementary) views
- true lateral view
- lateromedial oblique view
- late mediolateral view
- step oblique views
- spot view
- double spot compression view
- magnification view
- exaggerated craniocaudal (axillary) view
- cleavage view
- tangential views
- caudocranial view
- bullseye CC view
- rolled CC view
- elevated craniocaudal projection
- caudal cranial projection
- 20° oblique projection
- inferomedial superolateral oblique projection
- Eklund technique
- normal breast imaging examples
- digital breast tomosynthesis
- breast ultrasound
- breast ductography
- breast MRI
- breast morphology
- architectural distortion
- asymmetry in breast size
- breast density
- breast implants
- fibrocystic change
- free silicone breast injections
- parenchymal patterns in breast imaging
- tubular breasts
- breast pathology
- malignant lesions
- breast adenocacrinoma
- ductal breast carcinoma
- ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
invasive ductal carcinoma
- extensive intraductal component
- invasive ductal carcinoma not otherwise specified
- medullary carcinoma of the breast
- mucinous carcinoma of the breast
- Paget disease of the breast
- tubular carcinoma of the breast
- malignant papillary lesions of the breast
- lobular breast carcinoma
- ductal breast carcinoma
- adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast
- apocrine carcinoma of the breast
- breast cancer metastases
- breast lymphoma
- breast sarcoma
- inflammatory carcinoma of breast
- intracystic breast cancer
- male breast cancer
- malignant phyllodes tumour
- metastases to the breast
- metaplastic carcinoma the breast
- breast adenocacrinoma
- breast cancer
- borderline breast disease / high risk breast lesion
- benign lesions
- adenosis of the breast
- benign papillary lesions of the breast
- breast cyst
- breast haematoma
- breast hamartoma
- breast lipoma
- ductal adenoma of the breast
- epidermal inclusion cysts of the breast
- fat necrosis of the breast
- granular cell tumour of the breast
- lymphocytic mastitis
- mammary fibromatosis
- oil cyst
- phyllodes tumour
- post surgical breast scar
- post traumatic fibrosis
- pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH)
- tubular adenoma
breast calcifications (approach)
- microcalcifications within breast
- macrocalcifications within breast
- lobular calcification within breast tissue
- intraductal calcification within breast tissue
- milk of calcium within a breast cyst
- vascular calcification in breast tissue
- skin (dermal) calcification in / around breast tissue
- suture calcification within breast tissue
- stromal calcification within breast tissue
- artifactual calcification from outside the breast
- suspicious breast calcifications
- vascular lesions
- systemic disease
- classification systems
- malignant lesions
- 1. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348 (17): 1672-80. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp021804 - Free text at pubmed - Pubmed citation
- 2. 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 (3): 658-63. doi:10.1148/radiol.11110469 - Pubmed citation
- 3. Gøtzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet. 2000;355 (9198): 129-34. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)06065-1 - Pubmed citation
- 4. Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A et-al. 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): 2053-60. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69834-6 - Pubmed citation
- 5. Imber G. Genius on the Edge The Bizarre Double Life of Dr. William Stewart Halsted. Kaplan Publishing. (2011) ISBN:1607148587. Read it at Google Books - Find it at Amazon This easily readable biography gives insights into the man and his times. He was a very interesting, eccentric character who became totally substance dependent during his life. A good holiday read for those who are interested in the history behind what we do.
- 6. Jørgensen KJ, Keen JD, Gøtzsche PC. Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? Radiology. 2011;260 (3): 621-7. doi:10.1148/radiol.11110210 - Pubmed citation
- 9.Kopans DB. Do not jump too quickly to conclusions. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(4):108.
- 10.Kopans DB. Just the facts: mammography saves lives with little if any radiation risk to the mature breast. Health Phys. 2011;101(5):578-82.
- 11.Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammographic screening and "overdiagnosis". Radiology. 2011;260(3):616-20.
- 12.Sickles EA. Breast imaging: from 1965 to the present. Radiology. 2000;215(1):1-16.
- 13. Hackshaw A. The benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer: building the evidence base using service screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1(Supplement 1):1-2.