Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
Clinical Guidelines |26 November 2019

Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines Free

Holger J. Schünemann, MD, PhD, MSc; Donata Lerda, PhD; Cecily Quinn, MD; Markus Follmann, MD, MPH, MSc; Pablo Alonso-Coello, MD, PhD; Paolo Giorgi Rossi, PhD; Annette Lebeau, MD; Lennarth Nyström, PhD; Mireille Broeders, PhD; Lydia Ioannidou-Mouzaka, MD; Stephen W. Duffy, BSc, MSc, CStat; Bettina Borisch, MD; Patricia Fitzpatrick, MD; Solveig Hofvind, PhD; Xavier Castells, MD, PhD; Livia Giordano, MD; Carlos Canelo-Aybar, MD, MSc; Sue Warman, MEd; Robert Mansel, MD; Francesco Sardanelli, MD; Elena Parmelli, PhD; Axel Gräwingholt, MD; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson, PhD; for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Contributor Group *

Holger J. Schünemann, MD, PhD, MSc
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (H.J.S.)

Donata Lerda, PhD
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy (D.L., E.P., Z.S.)

Cecily Quinn, MD
St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (C.Q.)

Markus Follmann, MD, MPH, MSc
German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany (M.F.)

Pablo Alonso-Coello, MD, PhD
Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain (P.A.)

Paolo Giorgi Rossi, PhD
Azienda Unitá Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggia Emilia, Italy (P.G.R.)

Annette Lebeau, MD
Private Group Practice for Pathology, Lübeck, Germany (A.L.)

Lennarth Nyström, PhD
Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden (L.N.)

Mireille Broeders, PhD
Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (M.B.)

Lydia Ioannidou-Mouzaka, MD
University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece (L.I.)

Stephen W. Duffy, BSc, MSc, CStat
Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom (S.W.D.)

Bettina Borisch, MD
University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (B.B.)

Patricia Fitzpatrick, MD
National Screening Service, Dublin, Ireland (P.F.)

Solveig Hofvind, PhD
Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway (S.H.)

Xavier Castells, MD, PhD
IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain (X.C.)

Livia Giordano, MD
CPO-Piedmont – AOU Cittá della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy (L.G.)

Carlos Canelo-Aybar, MD, MSc
Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona, Spain (C.C.)

Sue Warman, MEd
Langford, North Somerset, United Kingdom (S.W.)

Robert Mansel, MD
Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom (R.M.)

Francesco Sardanelli, MD
Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy (F.S.)

Elena Parmelli, PhD
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy (D.L., E.P., Z.S.)

Axel Gräwingholt, MD
Radiologie am Theater, Paderborn, Germany (A.G.)

Zuleika Saz-Parkinson, PhD
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy (D.L., E.P., Z.S.)

for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Contributor Group

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
This article was published at Annals.org on 26 November 2019.
* For members of the ECIBC Contributor Group, see the Supplement.
  • McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (H.J.S.)
    European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy (D.L., E.P., Z.S.)
    St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (C.Q.)
    German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany (M.F.)
    Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain (P.A.)
    Azienda Unitá Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggia Emilia, Italy (P.G.R.)
    Private Group Practice for Pathology, Lübeck, Germany (A.L.)
    Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden (L.N.)
    Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (M.B.)
    University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece (L.I.)
    Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom (S.W.D.)
    University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (B.B.)
    National Screening Service, Dublin, Ireland (P.F.)
    Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway (S.H.)
    IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain (X.C.)
    CPO-Piedmont – AOU Cittá della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy (L.G.)
    Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona, Spain (C.C.)
    Langford, North Somerset, United Kingdom (S.W.)
    Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom (R.M.)
    Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy (F.S.)
    Radiologie am Theater, Paderborn, Germany (A.G.)

    Acknowledgment: The authors thank Jesús López Alcalde who coordinated the JRC methods for the ECIBC guidelines between 2013 and 2016, Chris de Wolf, Roberto D'Amico, and Peter Rabe for their contributions to the ECIBC guidelines as previous Joint Research Centre colleagues or retired GDG members.

    Financial Support: By the European Commission.

    Disclosures: Members of the GDG do not receive financial compensation for their work but are reimbursed by the European Commission for travel-related expenses for the meetings organized by the Joint Research Centre. Dr. Schünemann reports that the European Commission had chosen to use GRADE as one of the core methods for its guidelines before involving Dr. Schünemann. He was invited to participate in the guideline development as a methodologist and was elected by the ECIBC GDG as its cochair. He is also cochair of the GRADE working group and has codeveloped its methodology and tools, was commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences to write the background reports for the Institute of Medicine standards for trustworthy guideline development with coauthors, has conducted Cochrane reviews (currently is director of Cochrane Canada), and is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network. He has not received direct financial payments for ECIBC work but has received travel support and is under contract from the European Commission for a project relating to other guideline methods. Dr. Quinn is the chair of the European Working Group for Breast Screening Pathology (EWGBSP). Various companies have provided some sponsorship to the EWGBSP for group meetings. Dr. Alonso-Coello reports that his institution received payments from the European Commission to develop the systematic reviews informing the recommendations. He coordinated the systematic review team informing the guidelines. He is a member of the GRADE guidance group of the GRADE working group and a member of the board of the Guidelines International Network. He has contributed to the development of some of the methodology and tools. Dr. Giorgi Rossi reports that he published opinions about the superiority of public, organized, population-based screening programs instead of opportunistic and private screening, according to the European Commission recommendations 2003/878/EC. He is on the steering committee of MyPeBS (My Personal Breast Screening), a European multicentric trial to compare the effectiveness of personalized screening programs and standard protocols, and of the RETomo and MAITA trials, comparing digital mammography and DBT in breast cancer screening. Dr. Lebeau reports grants and reimbursement for travel-related expenses related to consultancy from Roche Pharma and Novartis Oncology, and grants from BioNTech Diagnostics, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lebeau reports that she is chair of the Breast Pathology Working Group of the German S3 Guidelines for the Early Detection, Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up of Breast Cancer; a member of the Scientific Advisory Council for the Cooperation Alliance Mammography (Kooperationsgemeinschaft Mammographie GBR), Germany; a member of the certification commission “breast cancer centres” as a representative of the German Society of Pathology and the Federal Association of German Pathologists; and a board member of the German Society of Pathology. Dr. Hofvind reports permanent employment as a researcher at the Cancer Registry of Norway, independent of her job as administrative leader of BreastScreen Norway. Dr. Canelo-Aybar reports that his institution received payments from the European Commission to develop the systematic reviews informing the recommendations. He is a member of the GRADE Working Group. Dr. Sardanelli is responsible for the department of radiology performing mammographic screening at the IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy. He is a member of the executive board of the European Society of Breast Imaging and codirector of the Breast MRI training course run by this society; director of the European Network for Assessment of Imaging in Medicine, joint initiative of the European Institute for Biomedical Imaging Research; editor-in-chief of European Radiology Experimental; and a recipient of research grants from Bracco, Bayer, and General Electric. Dr. Sardanelli is not a member of the GDG but did participate in formulating the recommendations. Dr. Parmelli is employed by the European Commission. Dr. Gräwingholt is head of the mammography screening center Paderborn, consultant radiologist for screening programs in Switzerland, and consultant radiologist for Hellenic School of Senology. Dr. Saz-Parkinson is employed by the European Commission, coordinating the ECIBC's GDG. Authors not named here have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Disclosures can also be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum= M19-2125.

    Editors' Disclosures: Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, reports that her spouse has stock options/holdings with Targeted Diagnostics and Therapeutics. Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Executive Editor, reports that he has no financial relationships or interests to disclose. Cynthia D. Mulrow, MD, MSc, Senior Deputy Editor, reports that she has no relationships or interests to disclose. Jaya K. Rao, MD, MHS, Deputy Editor, reports that she has stock holdings/options in Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Catharine B. Stack, PhD, MS, Deputy Editor, Statistics, reports that she has stock holdings in Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Colgate-Palmolive. Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, Deputy Editor, reports employment with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Sankey V. Williams, MD, Deputy Editor, reports that he has no financial relationships or interests to disclose. Yu-Xiao Yang, MD, MSCE, Deputy Editor, reports that he has no financial relationships or interest to disclose.

    Corresponding Author: Holger J. Schünemann, MD, PhD, MSc, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 4K1, Canada (e-mail, schuneh@mcmaster.ca); and Zuleika Saz-Parkinson, PhD, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP 127, Ispra VA, 21027, Italy (e-mail, zuleika.saz-parkinson@ec.europa.eu).

    Current Author Addresses: Dr. Schünemann: Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre and McMaster GRADE Centre, McMaster University 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 4K1, Canada.

    Drs. Lerda, Parmelli, and Saz-Parkinson: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, Ispra VA, 21027, Italy.

    Dr. Quinn: St. Vincent's University Hospital, 96 Merrion Road, Elm Park, Dublin, D04 T6F4, Ireland.

    Dr. Follmann: German Cancer Society, Kuno-fischer-straße 8, Berlin, 14057, Germany.

    Drs. Alonso-Coello and Canelo-Aybar: Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Barcelona, 8025, Spain.

    Dr. Giorgi Rossi: Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Via Amendola 2, Reggio Emilia, 42122, Italy.

    Dr. Lebeau: University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, Hamburg, 20246, Germany.

    Dr. Nyström: Umeå University, 90 187 Umeå, Sweden.

    Dr. Broeders: Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein 21, Nijmegen, 6525 EZ, the Netherlands.

    Dr. Ioannidou-Mouzaka: Leto Gynecological-Surgical and Obstetrical Clinic, 18, Avenue Kifissias, 11526 Athens, Greece.

    Mr. Duffy: Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom.

    Dr. Borisch: Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Chemin des Mines 9, Geneva, 1202, Switzerland.

    Dr. Fitzpatrick: National Screening Service, Kings Inns House, 200 Parnell Street, Dublin, D01 A3Y8, Ireland.

    Dr. Hofvind: Cancer Registry of Norway, Ullernchausseen 64, 0379 Oslo, Norway.

    Dr. Castells: IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Carrer del Dr. Aiguader, 88, Barcelona, 8003, Spain.

    Dr. Giordano: CPO Piedmont-AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, via Cavour 31, Turin, 10131, Italy.

    Mrs. Warman: Havyatt Lodge, Havyatt Road, Langford, North Somerset, BS40 5DD, United Kingdom.

    Dr. Mansel: Cardiff University, The Gables, Monmouth, NP25 3PA, United Kingdom.

    Dr. Sardanelli: Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Morandi 30, San Donato Milanese, Milan, 20097, Italy.

    Dr. Gräwingholt: Radiologie am Theater, Neuer Platz 4, Paderborn, NRW, 33098, Germany.

    Author Contributions: Conception and design: H.J. Schünemann, D. Lerda, Z. Saz-Parkinson.

    Analysis and interpretation of the data: H.J. Schünemann, C. Quinn, M. Follmann, P. Alonso-Coello, P. Giorgi Rossi, A. Lebeau, M. Broeders, S.W. Duffy, P. Fitzpatrick, S. Hofvind, C. Canelo-Aybar, S. Warman, E. Parmelli, A. Gräwingholt, Z. Saz-Parkinson.

    Drafting of the article: H.J. Schünemann, Z. Saz-Parkinson.

    Critical revision for important intellectual content: H.J. Schünemann, C. Quinn, M. Follmann, P. Alonso-Coello, P. Giorgi Rossi, A. Lebeau, L. Nyström, M. Broeders, L. Ioannidou-Mouzaka, B. Borisch, X. Castells, C. Canelo-Aybar, S. Warman, R. Mansel, F. Sardanelli, E. Parmelli, A. Gräwingholt, L. Giordano, Z. Saz-Parkinson.

    Final approval of the article: H.J. Schünemann, D. Lerda, C. Quinn, M. Follmann, P. Alonso-Coello, P. Giorgi Rossi, A. Lebeau, L. Nyström, M. Broeders, L. Ioannidou-Mouzaka, S.W. Duffy, B. Borisch, P. Fitzpatrick, S. Hofvind, X. Castells, L. Giordano, C. Canelo-Aybar, S. Warman, R. Mansel, F. Sardanelli, E. Parmelli, A. Gräwingholt, Z. Saz-Parkinson.

    Provision of study materials or patients: H.J. Schünemann, D. Lerda, P. Alonso-Coello, Z. Saz-Parkinson.

    Statistical expertise: H.J. Schünemann, P. Giorgi Rossi, L. Nyström, S.W. Duffy, C. Canelo-Aybar.

    Administrative, technical, or logistic support: H.J. Schünemann, P. Alonso-Coello, B. Borisch, D. Lerda, E. Parmelli, Z. Saz-Parkinson.

    Collection and assembly of data: H.J. Schünemann, P. Alonso-Coello, A. Lebeau, P. Fitzpatrick, C. Canelo-Aybar, S. Warman, Z. Saz-Parkinson.

×
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
  • FULL ARTICLE
    • Abstract
    • Guideline Development and Review Process
    • Recommendations
    • Discussion
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link

Abstract

Description:

The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers.

Methods:

An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or condi-tional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence.

Recommendations:

This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density.

Despite intensified efforts by the European Council since 2003, the implementation of organized, population-based mammography screening is not uniform across Europe and depends greatly on the policies in place in different countries, the organization of health care, and available resources (1). Since the last edition of the European Guidelines on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis was published in 2006 (2), new evidence regarding breast cancer and innovation in guideline methodology prompted the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) to develop new evidence-based recommendations (in short, the European Breast Guidelines).
This article provides a synopsis of 15 key recommendations selected from the European Breast Guidelines, coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and developed by an international guideline development group (GDG). These guidelines inform women, health professionals, and policymakers about important questions related to organized mammography screening and breast cancer diagnosis, but recommendations may apply in contexts in which organized screening programs are not in place. The recommendations primarily address women at average risk for breast cancer without increased risk due to genetic predisposition (mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2), reproductive history, or race/ethnicity. However, women with a family history, who may have a higher-than-average risk, are included in the ECIBC recommendations. Some recommendations also focus on women with high breast density and suspicious lesions on screening. The corresponding evidence reviews and recommendations are kept up to date and are available for adoption and adaptation at https://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/recommendations.

Guideline Development and Review Process

The European Commission adheres to methods for producing trustworthy guidelines (3–6), which we described in detail previously (7). In brief, the European Commission authorized new systematic reviews, or syntheses of existing ones, up to March 2016 for earlier recommendations and to December 2018 for later, more recent recommendations. This evidence informed the criteria in the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks that the GDG, guided by 4 cochairs and vice chairs, used to develop the recommendations (7–10). Each recommendation is linked to the full online EtD containing references, explanations (including considerations for implementation, monitoring, and research priorities), and judgments that were developed with GRADE's official app GRADEpro (www.gradepro.org) (7).

Recommendations

The Supplement Table lists all 40 questions and recommendations addressed by the group as of May 2019; the first 15 recommendations listed in the table are those addressed in this synopsis. The table includes the strength (strong or conditional) and certainty-of-evidence ratings and the dates of the last pertinent literature searches. The GDG took a programmatic population perspective, suggesting that strong recommendations in this context may be adopted as policies in most situations (11). Conditional recommendations suggest that policymaking will require substantial debate and involvement of various stakeholders. The implications of the recommendations for women and clinicians are supported by more specific, linked recommendations focusing on communication and shared decision making.

Should Organized Mammography Screening in Women Be Used?

The GDG considered women in the following age groups: 40 to 44, 45 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70 to 74 years. Evidence from some systematic reviews applied to all age groups for 1 or more EtD criteria. For example, mammography screening does not seem to create anxiety in women who are given a clear result after a mammogram. However, women recalled for further testing reported transient or long-term anxiety (from 6 months to 3 years after recall), but this was not consistent across studies (12–14). Women generally consider these undesirable effects acceptable (low certainty of evidence), and a systematic review suggested that women place a relatively low value on the psychosocial and physical effects of false-positive results and overdiagnosis; however, some studies raised concerns about whether women fully understand the resulting implications (15).

Organized Mammography Screening in Women Aged 40 to 44 Years or 45 to 49 Years

Recommendation 1. For asymptomatic women aged 40 to 44 years with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG suggests not implementing organized mammography screening (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/2pf8l9M).
Recommendation 2. For asymptomatic women aged 45 to 49 years with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG suggests mammography screening over no mammography screening, in the context of an organized screening program (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/2Pn1HZx).
Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of invitation to mammography screening provided breast cancer mortality data from 348 478 women younger than 50 years (16–22), and 4 reviews of observational studies evaluated relevant outcomes (12–14, 23). Organized mammography screening probably reduces breast cancer mortality (16–22) and may reduce the risk for breast cancer stage IIA or higher (17, 18, 22, 24–28). The incidence of breast cancer and mortality increases with age, and the GDG extrapolated that the absolute health benefits are greater in women aged 45 to 49 than those aged 40 to 44 years.
Data from 5 available trials in women aged 40 to 74 years suggest an increase in the rate of mastectomy (19, 29–32), although the GDG was concerned that these results might be misleading because of lead time. One RCT suggests a rate of 12.4% (95% CI, 9.9% to 14.9%) to 22.7% (CI, 18.4% to 27.0%) for overdiagnosis, depending on whether a population or an individual woman perspective is taken (27). The number of false-positives depends on the age of first screening, and women aged 40 to 44 years also have a greater radiation risk than older women.
The balance of desirable versus undesirable health effects for starting screening at age 40 probably favors no screening (the GDG judged that the undesirable health effects are large and the desirable ones small). However, for the 45- to 49-year age group, the higher breast cancer incidence and mortality compared with women between the ages of 40 and 44, as well as observational evidence showing a greater benefit in this age group (33), led the GDG to judge that the balance of health effects probably favors screening, although the required resources for screening likely differ across settings (34, 35).

Organized Mammography Screening in Women Aged 50 to 69 Years

Recommendation 3. For asymptomatic women aged 50 to 69 years with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG recommends mammography screening over no mammography screening, in the context of an organized screening program (strong recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/2qNKE91).
On the basis of data from 249 930 women aged 50 to 69 years from 6 RCTs, invitation to organized mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality (17, 19–22, 36) and may reduce the risk for breast cancer stage IIA or higher (17, 22, 24–26, 37). Five trials describe increased rates of mastectomy in women between ages 40 and 74 (19, 29–32), with concerns about lead-time bias similar to those for the younger age group. Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs suggest overdiagnosis rates of 10.1% (CI, 8.6% to 11.6%) and 17.3% (CI, 14.7% to 20.0%) (37, 38).
The cost-effectiveness studies probably favored screening, but this would vary across countries (34, 39–41). The GDG determined that screening in this age group has a net health benefit, and other EtD criteria were generally in favor of implementing organized mammography screening. Thus, despite uncertainty about the relative importance of outcomes or values, the GDG made a strong recommendation for organized screening but emphasizes that all invited women should receive clear information about the desirable and undesirable effects to make informed decisions.

Organized Mammography Screening in Women Aged 70 to 74 Years

Recommendation 4. For asymptomatic women aged 70 to 74 years with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG suggests mammography screening over no mammography screening, in the context of an organized screening program (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/31KjCMA).
According to 2 RCTs of invitation to mammography screening in 18 233 women aged 70 years and older (19, 21), organized mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, the risk for breast cancer stage IIA or higher, and detection of tumors larger than 50 mm (25).
Five trials in women aged 40 to 74 years described increased mastectomy rates (19, 29–32). Concerns have been raised about lead-time bias, the small number of women aged 70 to 74 years included for the outcome of mastectomy, and the available data for overdiagnosis being derived exclusively from women aged 50 to 69 years for an overall judgment of probable net health benefit. Other EtD criteria also were generally in favor of implementing organized mammography screening in this age group.

How Often Should Women Attend an Organized Mammography Screening Program?

Women Aged 45 to 49 Years

Recommendation 5. For asymptomatic women aged 45 to 49 years with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG suggests either biennial or triennial mammography over annual screening in the context of an organized screening program (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/32O1faP).

Women Aged 50 to 69 Years

Recommendations 6 and 7. For asymptomatic women aged 50 to 69 years with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG recommends against annual mammography screening (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/2BIzNzj) and suggests biennial mammography screening over triennial mammography screening in the context of an organized screening program (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/31QCUQi).

Women Aged 70 to 74 Years

Recommendations 8 and 9. For asymptomatic women aged 70 to 74 years with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG recommends against annual mammography screening (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/342qJS0) and suggests triennial mammography screening over biennial mammography screening in the context of an organized screening program (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/2JpK1su).
The GDG compared annual, biennial, and triennial screening intervals in women for whom the GDG either strongly (ages 50 to 69 years) or conditionally (ages 45 to 49 and 70 to 74 years) recommended screening (Table 1). Evidence exists from RCTs to compare annual with triennial screening in women aged 50 to 69 years (42) and from observational studies (43–46) for a broader age range. To fill gaps in the direct evidence, the GDG used evidence from indirect comparisons of annual (18, 20, 47) or biennial (19, 48) screening compared with no screening, as well as the results of modeling studies (44, 49, 50). The GDG also conducted its own simple modeling—for example, calculating events by subtracting the estimated outcome rates in women aged 45 to 69 years (or 70 to 74 years) from those aged 50 to 69 years (or 70 to 74 years)—and assumed that effects were incremental to those found for women aged 50 to 69 years (or 70 to 74 years) at screening.

Table 1. Multiple-Intervention Comparison of Desirable and Undesirable Consequences of Annual, Biennial, and Triennial Mammography Screening for Women Aged 45 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70 to 74 Years

Table 1. Multiple-Intervention Comparison of Desirable and Undesirable Consequences of Annual, Biennial, and Triennial Mammography Screening for Women Aged 45 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70 to 74 Years
The benefits resulting from more rather than less frequent screening differed across age groups but suggest that for all age groups, annual screening may reduce breast cancer mortality compared with biennial or triennial screening. Compared with biennial screening, the incidence of stage IIB to IV breast cancer and interval cancer seemed lower with annual screening (51–53). More quality-adjusted life-years seemed to be gained with annual than biennial or triennial screening (44, 49). When biennial was compared with triennial screening, the reported benefits were similar in all age groups, except for detection of stage IIB to IV breast cancer in women aged 50 to 69 years, which favored biennial screening.
Harms also differed across age groups but showed similar patterns. Annual screening showed increased overdiagnosis rates, more false-positive results (in some comparisons, >30% more), and more suggestions for follow-up with biopsies for false-positive results (in some comparisons, >5% more) across age groups compared with biennial or triennial screening (43, 44, 49, 52, 54). Biennial screening probably leads to more overdiagnosis, false-positive results, and suggestions for follow-up with biopsies for false-positive results than triennial screening, but the differences become smaller with increasing age (44, 45). Radiation-induced breast cancer and higher rates with biennial or triennial screeningof radiation-induced breast cancer deaths probably result from annual (6 in 100 000 women) and biennial screening (4 in 100 000 women) compared with triennial screening (50).

What Tests Should Be Used to Screen for Breast Cancer?

The following 2 recommendations about digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), originally made in April 2016, were updated and changed in November 2018.

Should Screening With DBT (Including Synthesized 2-Dimensional Images) Versus Digital Mammography Be Used for Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Asymptomatic Women?

Recommendation 10. For asymptomatic women with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG suggests screening with digital mammography over DBT, in the context of an organized screening program (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/2pRtw1G). Because the GDG made a strong recommendation for screening at ages 50 to 69 years, this applies specifically to this age group.
We found 9 relevant observational studies (55–63), but they did not measure the outcomes of breast cancer mortality, cancer stage, and quality of life. Screening with DBT increased breast cancer detection compared with digital mammography (55–57, 61, 62). No differences in interval cancer detection rate, recall rate, or false-positive recall were found between DBT and digital mammography (55–58, 61–63).
The resources needed to move to DBT were considered moderate by the GDG, not only because of the greater costs of the machines but also because of the human resources required. One observational study (59) reported that radiologists' reading time would double for DBT compared with digital mammography, but staff costs may vary depending on the country. The GDG emphasized that research on direct outcomes (namely, other-cause mortality, breast cancer mortality, radiation-induced cancer, and quality of life) is not yet available, leading to uncertainty in the balance of health effects from using DBT in screening programs.

Should Screening Using DBT (Including Synthesized 2-Dimensional Images) in Addition to Digital Mammography Versus Digital Mammography Alone Be Used for Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Asymptomatic Women?

Recommendation 11. For asymptomatic women with an average risk for breast cancer, the ECIBC's GDG suggests screening with digital mammography alone over screening with DBT in addition to digital mammography, in the context of an organized screening program (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/33aQf6V).
We found 1 RCT (64) and 10 observational studies (55–60, 65–71) that were relevant. Screening with DBT in addition to digital mammography increased the cancer detection rate and detection of invasive cancer compared with digital mammography alone (55–58, 64–66, 69). No differences were found in recall rate (55, 56, 58, 64–66, 69), but in 4 of the observational studies the rate of false-positive recalls was increased when both techniques were combined, although the RCT (64) showed no differences. The GDG agreed that the effect would vary depending on the baseline rate. Despite about a 2-fold increase in radiation dose with use of both DBT and digital mammography, the GDG determined that the absolute increase in radiation-induced cancer was probably small (58–60, 64).
The resources needed to adopt DBT plus digital mammography were considered large because of the higher costs of the machines and the necessary human resources (72). For instance, radiologists' reading time would at least double by using both techniques (77 to 191 seconds) compared with digital mammography alone (33 to 67 seconds) (56, 59, 73). Although the GDG could not determine whether using DBT in addition to digital mammography in screening programs provided a net health benefit, it concluded that, overall, the undesirable consequences were greater than the desirable ones.

What Tests Should Be Used to Screen for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breast Tissue?

The GDG answered 4 questions about whether a woman whose mammogram shows no breast cancer but who has dense breast tissue should have another mammogram or other tests, such as DBT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or ultrasonography (automated or hand-held). The DBT question currently is being updated, so only the other 3 questions are described in detail here.

Tailored Screening With Automated Breast Ultrasonography

Recommendation 12. For asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density and negative mammography results, in the context of an organized screening program, the ECIBC's GDG suggests not implementing tailored screening with automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) over mammography screening alone (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/341Kg4V).
We found 3 observational studies reporting the effect on breast cancer detection and recall rates of additional screening with ABUS after a negative mammography result (74–76). The addition of ABUS after a negative mammography result increased the number of breast cancer cases detected. However, interaction may exist between risk factors other than breast density and detection rate; therefore, absolute or relative effects may not be comparable. The GDG expressed concern about the link between higher detection rate and mortality because of the lack of evidence for the outcome of breast cancer mortality. Two studies suggested an increase in recall rate with ABUS (74, 75). The GDG determined that the balance of health effects favors neither ABUS after mammography nor mammography alone, and other EtD criteria generally were in favor of not implementing additional screening with ABUS.

Tailored Screening With Hand-Held Ultrasonography Based on High Mammographic Breast Density

Recommendation 13. For asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density and a negative mammography result, in the context of an organized screening program, the ECIBC's GDG suggests not implementing tailored screening with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) over mammography screening alone where such is not already the practice (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/366cEVx).
Additional screening with HHUS after a negative mammography result increased the number of breast cancer cases detected compared with mammography alone in 1 randomized and 5 observational studies (77–82). Because of a lack of evidence about the anticipated effects on mortality and other outcomes, the GDG could not determine what the desirable effects would be.
We found no evidence of undesirable effects of adding HHUS after a mammogram. The GDG considered indirect evidence suggesting that the lifetime incremental cost for biennial screening with supplemental HHUS is $560 per woman aged 50 to 74 years and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained is equal to $238 550 in purchasing power parity in the United States (83). The GDG determined that the balance of health effects favors neither HHUS after mammography nor mammography alone, so the additional resources needed to implement HHUS led the GDG to advise against adding HHUS for these women.

Tailored Screening With MRI Based on High Mammographic Breast Density

Recommendation 14. For asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density and a negative mammography result, in the context of an organized screening program, the ECIBC's GDG suggests not implementing tailored screening with MRI over mammography screening alone (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence; EtD available at http://bit.ly/32PMDaK).
We found 5 observational studies reporting on rates of breast cancer detection and recall (84–88). Additional testing with MRI markedly increased the breast cancer detection rate compared with mammography alone, raising concerns about overdiagnosis; no evidence was found for mortality or other related outcomes. The GDG discussed the importance of false-positives and interval cancer cases in particular, as well as possible side effects of the contrast medium used in MRI-based screening.
Although the GDG found no evidence regarding resources and cost-effectiveness, it assumed that the costs of MRI equipment and examinations are much higher than those of digital mammography. The GDG determined that MRI after mammography in women with high mammographic breast density probably results in net harm, and after also considering the increased costs, the group advised against additional testing with MRI for these women.

What Test Should Be Used for Diagnosis in Average-Risk Women Recalled Because of Suspicious Lesions at Mammography Screening?

Recommendation 15. The ECIBC's GDG suggests using DBT over diagnostic mammography projections in women at average risk for breast cancer recalled for suspicious lesions at mammography screening (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of test accuracy data; EtD available at http://bit.ly/31KV0mD).
We found 10 studies (72, 89–97) reporting the accuracy of DBT compared with assessment mammography for diagnosis in women recalled because of suspicious lesions at mammography screening. Digital breast tomosynthesis leads to more true-positives (patients correctly diagnosed with breast cancer), fewer false-negatives (patients incorrectly classified as not having breast cancer), more true-negatives (women without breast cancer), and fewer false-positives (women incorrectly assumed to have breast cancer). Although the GDG found no evidence regarding the consequences of these accuracy results on clinical outcomes, the group discussed the possible concern about radiation dose in DBT. Only 1 study reported radiation dose (a surrogate outcome to assess the risk for radiation-induced breast cancer), and the GDG judged that side effects of DBT compared with assessment mammography (including magnification) were likely to be trivial (91).
The GDG concluded that DBT probably confers a net health benefit, and although the DBT device is much more expensive than the equipment needed for magnification mammography, information for other EtD criteria also generally favored using DBT for diagnosis in women recalled for suspicious lesions at mammography screening.

Discussion

In developing the European Breast Guidelines, the ECIBC used a rigorous approach to produce recommendations on breast cancer screening and diagnosis for women. The guidelines include recommendations that address the use of various tests, including DBT, MRI, ABUS, and HHUS, for women who have suspicious lesions on mammography screening or who have dense breast tissue. The use of some tests, such as DBT, in women with high breast density are not addressed in this synopsis, but updates that incorporate emerging pertinent evidence and related recommendations are under way.
The strengths of the guidelines include their adherence to requirements for trustworthy development (4, 6, 98), including the public and transparent display of all evidence, considerations, and judgments for use by women, health care professionals, policymakers, and researchers (https://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/recommendations). Previously we described limitations of our guidelines related to the lack of high-certainty evidence for some recommendations, the absence of formal modeling, conflicts of interest, and process issues (7). We believe these limitations are balanced by the recommendations' transparency, which allows for scientific discourse and comparison with other guidelines.
Table 2 shows that our key recommendations on screening in women younger than 50 years generally agree with guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (99), American College of Physicians (100), and American Cancer Society (101), which suggest shared decision making. However, our recommendations are less strong and favor wider screening intervals than those of the American College of Radiology (102) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (103) (Table 2). For the other age groups, the recommendations agree with those of the World Health Organization (104) and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (105) but not with those of the Canadian Task Force for Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) (106). The CTFPHC also used the GRADE EtD approach, allowing a more detailed exploration of the differences. The key difference is the CTFPHC's recommendation against screening in women until age 49 and after age 69. We believe this is a result of the CTFPHC attaching a higher value to potential harms; more concerns about risk of bias, leading to lower certainty of the evidence; and greater importance attached to outcomes for which less information was available. This in turn led the CTFPHC to assign overall lower certainty. The ECIBC's GDG carefully analyzed the existing data and supplemented the RCTs when available with observational studies, and had no serious concerns about risk of bias in the trials overall (see explanations in the evidence profile at http://bit.ly/2qNKE91). In contrast to the CTFPHC, the ECIBC's GDG also did not have concerns about inconsistency in trial results, making the GDG more confident in the recommendation for women aged 50 to 69 years.

Table 2. Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Women*

Table 2. Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Women*
The feasibility of implementing a recommendation, the acceptability of that recommendation, the required resources, and the associated values are often context dependent. Some countries have started or intend to adapt or adopt specific recommendations in Europe (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Slovakia) and outside Europe (Bahrain, Chile, China, and Tunisia) using the EtD frameworks and the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT (GRADE EtD frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations) methodology (107).
In summary, this synopsis presents and summarizes the rationale for 15 key recommendations of the European Breast Guidelines. The complete set of recommendations (Supplement Table) provides advice on additional issues, such as how to communicate with vulnerable populations about screening options, how to inform women about results, the use of decision aids, how to work up calcifications, whether to use clip marking for core needle biopsies, and whether mammograms require double reading.

References

  1. Deandrea
    S
    ,  
    Molina-Barceló
    A
    ,  
    Uluturk
    A
    ,  
    et al
    Presence, characteristics and equity of access to breast cancer screening programmes in 27 European countries in 2010 and 2014. Results from an international survey.
    Prev Med
    2016
    91
    250
    263
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  2. Perry
    N
    ,  
    Broeders
    M
    ,  
    DeWolf
    C
    ,  
    et al
    European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. 4th ed.
    Luxembourg
    Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
    2006
  3. Institute of Medicine
    Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust
    Washington, DC
    National Academies Pr
    2011
  4. Oxman
    AD
    ,  
    Fretheim
    A
    ,  
    Schünemann
    HJ
    .  
    SURE
    Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction.
    Health Res Policy Syst
    2006
    4
    12
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  5. Qaseem
    A
    ,  
    Forland
    F
    ,  
    Macbeth
    F
    ,  
    et al
    Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network
    Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines.
    Ann Intern Med
    2012
    156
    525
    31
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  6. Schünemann
    HJ
    ,  
    Wiercioch
    W
    ,  
    Etxeandia
    I
    ,  
    et al
    Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.
    CMAJ
    2014
    186
    E123
    42
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  7. Schünemann
    HJ
    ,  
    Lerda
    D
    ,  
    Dimitrova
    N
    ,  
    et al
    European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer Contributor Group.
    Methods for development of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer guidelines: recommendations in the era of guideline transparency.
    Ann Intern Med
    2019
  8. Alonso-Coello
    P
    ,  
    Oxman
    AD
    ,  
    Moberg
    J
    ,  
    et al
    GRADE Working Group
    GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines.
    BMJ
    2016
    353
    i2089
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  9. Alonso-Coello
    P
    ,  
    Schünemann
    HJ
    ,  
    Moberg
    J
    ,  
    et al
    GRADE Working Group
    GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction.
    BMJ
    2016
    353
    i2016
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  10. Schünemann
    HJ
    ,  
    Mustafa
    R
    ,  
    Brozek
    J
    ,  
    et al
    GRADE Working Group
    GRADE Guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health.
    J Clin Epidemiol
    2016
    76
    89
    98
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  11. Andrews
    J
    ,  
    Guyatt
    G
    ,  
    Oxman
    AD
    ,  
    et al
    GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations.
    J Clin Epidemiol
    2013
    66
    719
    25
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  12. Bond
    M
    ,  
    Pavey
    T
    ,  
    Welch
    K
    ,  
    et al
    Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.
    Health Technol Assess
    2013
    17
    1
    170, v-vi
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  13. Brett
    J
    ,  
    Bankhead
    C
    ,  
    Henderson
    B
    ,  
    et al
    The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review.
    Psychooncology
    2005
    14
    917
    38
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  14. Salz
    T
    ,  
    Richman
    AR
    ,  
    Brewer
    NT
    .  
    Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes.
    Psychooncology
    2010
    19
    1026
    34
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  15. Mathioudakis
    AG
    ,  
    Salakari
    M
    ,  
    Pylkkanen
    L
    ,  
    et al
    Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services.
    Psychooncology
    2019
    28
    939
    947
     PubMed
     PubMed
  16. Miller
    AB
    ,  
    Baines
    CJ
    ,  
    To
    T
    ,  
    et al
    Canadian national breast screening study: 1. breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years.
    CMAJ
    1992
    147
    1459
    76
     PubMed
     PubMed
  17. Bjurstam
    NG
    ,  
    Björneld
    LM
    ,  
    Duffy
    SW
    .  
    Updated results of the gothenburg trial of mammographic screening.
    Cancer
    2016
    122
    1832
    5
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  18. Moss
    SM
    ,  
    Wale
    C
    ,  
    Smith
    R
    ,  
    et al
    Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial.
    Lancet Oncol
    2015
    16
    1123
    1132
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  19. Nyström
    L
    ,  
    Andersson
    I
    ,  
    Bjurstam
    N
    ,  
    et al
    Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.
    Lancet
    2002
    359
    909
    19
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  20. Shapiro
    S
    .  
    Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP randomized controlled trial. health insurance plan.
    J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
    1997
    27
    30
     PubMed
  21. Tabar
    L
    ,  
    Duffy
    SW
    ,  
    Yen
    MF
    ,  
    et al
    All-cause mortality among breast cancer patients in a screening trial: support for breast cancer mortality as an end point.
    J Med Screen
    2002
    9
    159
    62
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  22. Habbema
    JD
    ,  
    van Oortmarssen
    GJ
    ,  
    van Putten
    DJ
    ,  
    et al
    Age-specific reduction in breast cancer mortality by screening: an analysis of the results of the Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York study.
    J Natl Cancer Inst
    1986
    77
    317
    20
     PubMed
     PubMed
  23. Hofvind
    S
    ,  
    Ponti
    A
    ,  
    Patnick
    J
    ,  
    et al
    EUNICE Project and Euroscreen Working Groups
    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
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  24. Bjurstam
    N
    ,  
    Björneld
    L
    ,  
    Warwick
    J
    ,  
    et al
    The Gothenburg breast screening trial.
    Cancer
    2003
    97
    2387
    96
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  25. Tabar
    L
    ,  
    Fagerberg
    G
    ,  
    Chen
    HH
    ,  
    et al
    Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial.
    Cancer
    1995
    75
    2507
    17
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  26. Chu
    KC
    ,  
    Smart
    CR
    ,  
    Tarone
    RE
    .  
    Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the Health Insurance Plan clinical trial.
    J Natl Cancer Inst
    1988
    80
    1125
    32
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  27. Miller
    AB
    ,  
    To
    T
    ,  
    Baines
    CJ
    ,  
    et al
    The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years.
    Ann Intern Med
    2002
    137
    305
    12
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  28. Moss
    S
    ,  
    Waller
    M
    ,  
    Anderson
    TJ
    ,  
    et al
    Trial Management Group
    Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures.
    Br J Cancer
    2005
    92
    955
    60
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  29. Miller
    AB
    .  
    The costs and benefits of breast cancer screening.
    Am J Prev Med
    1993 May-Jun
    9
    175
    80
     PubMed
    CrossRef
  30. Andersson
    I
    ,  
    Aspegren
    K
    ,  
    Janzon
    L
    ,  
    et al
    Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial.
    BMJ
    1988
    297
    943
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  31. Tabar
    L
    ,  
    Chen
    HH
    ,  
    Duffy
    SW
    ,  
    et al
    Primary and adjuvant therapy, prognostic factors and survival in 1053 breast cancers diagnosed in a trial of mammography screening.
    Jpn J Clin Oncol
    1999
    29
    608
    16
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  32. Frisell
    J
    .  
    Mammographic screening for breast cancer [thesis]
    Stockholm
    Stockholm University
    1989
  33. 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
    714
    22
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  34. Sankatsing
    VD
    ,  
    Heijnsdijk
    EA
    ,  
    van Luijt
    PA
    ,  
    et al
    Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in the Netherlands.
    Int J Cancer
    2015
    137
    1990
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  35. Madan
    J
    ,  
    Rawdin
    A
    ,  
    Stevenson
    M
    ,  
    et al
    A rapid-response economic evaluation of the UK NHS Cancer Reform Strategy breast cancer screening program extension via a plausible bounds approach.
    Value Health
    2010 Mar-Apr
    13
    215
    21
     PubMed
    CrossRef
  36. Miller
    AB
    ,  
    Baines
    CJ
    ,  
    To
    T
    ,  
    et al
    Canadian national breast screening study: 2. breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years.
    CMAJ
    1992
    147
    1477
    88
     PubMed
     PubMed
  37. Miller
    AB
    ,  
    To
    T
    ,  
    Baines
    CJ
    ,  
    et al
    Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years.
    J Natl Cancer Inst
    2000
    92
    1490
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  38. Zackrisson
    S
    ,  
    Andersson
    I
    ,  
    Janzon
    L
    ,  
    et al
    Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study.
    BMJ
    2006
    332
    689
    92
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  39. Pharoah
    PD
    ,  
    Sewell
    B
    ,  
    Fitzsimmons
    D
    ,  
    et al
    Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model.
    BMJ
    2013
    346
    f2618
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  40. Carles
    M
    ,  
    Vilaprinyo
    E
    ,  
    Cots
    F
    ,  
    et al
    Cost-effectiveness of early detection of breast cancer in Catalonia (Spain).
    BMC Cancer
    2011
    11
    192
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  41. Rojnik
    K
    ,  
    Naversnik
    K
    ,  
    Mateovic-Rojnik
    T
    ,  
    et al
    Probabilistic cost-effectiveness modeling of different breast cancer screening policies in Slovenia.
    Value Health
    2008 Mar-Apr
    11
    139
    48
     PubMed
    CrossRef
  42. Breast Screening Frequency Trial Group
    The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial. United Kingdom co-ordinating committee on cancer research.
    Eur J Cancer
    2002
    38
    1458
    64
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  43. O'Meara
    ES
    ,  
    Zhu
    W
    ,  
    Hubbard
    RA
    ,  
    et al
    Mammographic screening interval in relation to tumor characteristics and false-positive risk by race/ethnicity and age.
    Cancer
    2013
    119
    3959
    67
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  44. Vilaprinyo
    E
    ,  
    Forné
    C
    ,  
    Carles
    M
    ,  
    et al
    Interval Cancer (INCA) Study Group
    Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer.
    PLoS One
    2014
    9
    e86858
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  45. Yaffe
    MJ
    ,  
    Mittmann
    N
    ,  
    Lee
    P
    ,  
    et al
    Clinical outcomes of modelling mammography screening strategies.
    Health Rep
    2015
    26
    9
    15
     PubMed
     PubMed
  46. Kerlikowske
    K
    ,  
    Zhu
    W
    ,  
    Hubbard
    RA
    ,  
    et al
    Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy.
    JAMA Intern Med
    2013
    173
    807
    16
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  47. Miller
    AB
    ,  
    Wall
    C
    ,  
    Baines
    CJ
    ,  
    et al
    Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial.
    BMJ
    2014
    348
    g366
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  48. Tabár
    L
    ,  
    Vitak
    B
    ,  
    Chen
    HH
    ,  
    et al
    The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up
    Radiol Clin North Am
    2000
    38
    625
    51
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  49. Mandelblatt
    JS
    ,  
    Stout
    NK
    ,  
    Schechter
    CB
    ,  
    et al
    Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. breast cancer screening strategies.
    Ann Intern Med
    2016
    164
    215
    25
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  50. Miglioretti
    DL
    ,  
    Lange
    J
    ,  
    van den Broek
    JJ
    ,  
    et al
    Radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening: a modeling study.
    Ann Intern Med
    2016
    164
    205
    14
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  51. Miglioretti
    DL
    ,  
    Zhu
    W
    ,  
    Kerlikowske
    K
    ,  
    et al
    Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Breast tumor prognostic characteristics and biennial vs annual mammography, age, and menopausal status.
    JAMA Oncol
    2015
    1
    1069
    77
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  52. Braithwaite
    D
    ,  
    Zhu
    W
    ,  
    Hubbard
    RA
    ,  
    et al
    Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?
    J Natl Cancer Inst
    2013
    105
    334
    41
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  53. Hunt
    KA
    ,  
    Rosen
    EL
    ,  
    Sickles
    EA
    .  
    Outcome analysis for women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography: a review of 24,211 examinations.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol
    1999
    173
    285
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  54. Dittus
    K
    ,  
    Geller
    B
    ,  
    Weaver
    DL
    ,  
    et al
    Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Impact of mammography screening interval on breast cancer diagnosis by menopausal status and BMI.
    J Gen Intern Med
    2013
    28
    1454
    62
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  55. Romero Martín
    S
    ,  
    Raya Povedano
    JL
    ,  
    Cara García
    M
    ,  
    et al
    Prospective study aiming to compare 2D mammography and tomosynthesis + synthesized mammography in terms of cancer detection and recall. From double reading of 2D mammography to single reading of tomosynthesis.
    Eur Radiol
    2018
    28
    2484
    2491
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  56. 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
    47
    56
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  57. Bernardi
    D
    ,  
    Macaskill
    P
    ,  
    Pellegrini
    M
    ,  
    et al
    Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.
    Lancet Oncol
    2016
    17
    1105
    1113
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  58. 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
    583
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  59. Wallis
    MG
    ,  
    Moa
    E
    ,  
    Zanca
    F
    ,  
    et al
    Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study.
    Radiology
    2012
    262
    788
    96
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  60. Paulis
    LE
    ,  
    Lobbes
    MB
    ,  
    Lalji
    UC
    ,  
    et al
    Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography.
    Invest Radiol
    2015
    50
    679
    85
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  61. Hofvind
    S
    ,  
    Hovda
    T
    ,  
    Holen
    ÅS
    ,  
    et al
    Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program.
    Radiology
    2018
    287
    787
    794
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  62. Zackrisson
    S
    ,  
    Lång
    K
    ,  
    Rosso
    A
    ,  
    et al
    One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study.
    Lancet Oncol
    2018
    19
    1493
    1503
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  63. Bahl
    M
    ,  
    Gaffney
    S
    ,  
    McCarthy
    AM
    ,  
    et al
    Breast cancer characteristics associated with 2D digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for screening-detected and interval cancers.
    Radiology
    2018
    287
    49
    57
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  64. Pattacini
    P
    ,  
    Nitrosi
    A
    ,  
    GiorgiRossi
    P
    ,  
    et al
    RETomo Working Group
    Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia tomosynthesis randomized trial.
    Radiology
    2018
    288
    375
    385
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  65. Skaane
    P
    ,  
    Bandos
    AI
    ,  
    Eben
    EB
    ,  
    et al
    Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
    Radiology
    2014
    271
    655
    63
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  66. Skaane
    P
    ,  
    Bandos
    AI
    ,  
    Gullien
    R
    ,  
    et al
    Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.
    Eur Radiol
    2013
    23
    2061
    71
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  67. Lång
    K
    ,  
    Andersson
    I
    ,  
    Rosso
    A
    ,  
    et al
    Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study.
    Eur Radiol
    2016
    26
    184
    90
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  68. Lång
    K
    ,  
    Nergården
    M
    ,  
    Andersson
    I
    ,  
    et al
    False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.
    Eur Radiol
    2016
    26
    3899
    3907
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  69. Houssami
    N
    ,  
    Macaskill
    P
    ,  
    Bernardi
    D
    ,  
    et al
    Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading—evidence to guide future screening strategies.
    Eur J Cancer
    2014
    50
    1799
    1807
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  70. Houssami
    N
    ,  
    Bernardi
    D
    ,  
    Caumo
    F
    ,  
    et al
    Interval breast cancers in the ‘screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) population-based trial.
    Breast
    2018
    38
    150
    153
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  71. Skaane
    P
    ,  
    Sebuødegård
    S
    ,  
    Bandos
    AI
    ,  
    et al
    Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.
    Breast Cancer Res Treat
    2018
    169
    489
    496
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  72. Gilbert
    FJ
    ,  
    Tucker
    L
    ,  
    Gillan
    MG
    ,  
    et al
    Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial).
    Radiology
    2015
    277
    697
    706
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  73. Bernardi
    D
    ,  
    Ciatto
    S
    ,  
    Pellegrini
    M
    ,  
    et al
    Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time.
    Br J Radiol
    2012
    85
    e1174
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  74. Kelly
    KM
    ,  
    Dean
    J
    ,  
    Comulada
    WS
    ,  
    et al
    Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts.
    Eur Radiol
    2010
    20
    734
    42
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  75. Brem
    RF
    ,  
    Tabár
    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
    663
    73
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  76. Giuliano
    V
    ,  
    Giuliano
    C
    .  
    Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts.
    Clin Imaging
    2013 May-Jun
    37
    480
    6
     PubMed
    CrossRef
  77. Ohuchi
    N
    ,  
    Suzuki
    A
    ,  
    Sobue
    T
    ,  
    et al
    J-START investigator groups
    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
    341
    348
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  78. De Felice
    C
    ,  
    Savelli
    S
    ,  
    Angeletti
    M
    ,  
    et al
    Diagnostic utility of combined ultrasonography and mammography in the evaluation of women with mammographically dense breasts.
    J Ultrasound
    2007
    10
    143
    51
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  79. Kolb
    TM
    ,  
    Lichy
    J
    ,  
    Newhouse
    JH
    .  
    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
    2002
    225
    165
    75
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  80. Korpraphong
    P
    ,  
    Limsuwarn
    P
    ,  
    Tangcharoensathien
    W
    ,  
    et al
    Improving breast cancer detection using ultrasonography in asymptomatic women with non-fatty breast density.
    Acta Radiol
    2014
    55
    903
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  81. Venturini
    E
    ,  
    Losio
    C
    ,  
    Panizza
    P
    ,  
    et al
    Tailored breast cancer screening program with microdose mammography, US, and MR Imaging: short-term results of a pilot study in 40-49-year-old women.
    Radiology
    2013
    268
    347
    55
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  82. Corsetti
    V
    ,  
    Ferrari
    A
    ,  
    Ghirardi
    M
    ,  
    et al
    Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts.
    Radiol Med
    2006
    111
    440
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  83. Sprague
    BL
    ,  
    Stout
    NK
    ,  
    Schechter
    C
    ,  
    et al
    Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.
    Ann Intern Med
    2015
    162
    157
    66
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  84. Berg
    WA
    ,  
    Zhang
    Z
    ,  
    Lehrer
    D
    .  
    ACRIN 6666 Investigators
    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
    1394
    404
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  85. 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
    2304
    10
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  86. Kuhl
    CK
    ,  
    Strobel
    K
    ,  
    Bieling
    H
    ,  
    et al
    Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer.
    Radiology
    2017
    283
    361
    370
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  87. Kriege
    M
    ,  
    Brekelmans
    CT
    ,  
    Boetes
    C
    ,  
    et al
    Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group
    Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.
    N Engl J Med
    2004
    351
    427
    37
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  88. Chen
    SQ
    ,  
    Huang
    M
    ,  
    Shen
    YY
    ,  
    et al
    Application of abbreviated protocol of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer screening in dense breast tissue.
    Acad Radiol
    2017
    24
    316
    320
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  89. Whelehan
    P
    ,  
    Heywang-Köbrunner
    SH
    ,  
    Vinnicombe
    SJ
    ,  
    et al
    Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study.
    Clin Radiol
    2017
    72
    95
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  90. Waldherr
    C
    ,  
    Cerny
    P
    ,  
    Altermatt
    HJ
    ,  
    et al
    Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol
    2013
    200
    226
    31
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  91. Tagliafico
    A
    ,  
    Astengo
    D
    ,  
    Cavagnetto
    F
    ,  
    et al
    One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Eur Radiol
    2012
    22
    539
    44
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  92. Poplack
    SP
    ,  
    Tosteson
    TD
    ,  
    Kogel
    CA
    ,  
    et al
    Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol
    2007
    189
    616
    23
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  93. Michell
    MJ
    ,  
    Iqbal
    A
    ,  
    Wasan
    RK
    ,  
    et al
    A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Clin Radiol
    2012
    67
    976
    81
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  94. Heywang-Köbrunner
    SH
    ,  
    Hacker
    A
    ,  
    Jänsch
    A
    ,  
    et al
    German Reader
    Team
    ,  
    Use of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound vs. additional views and ultrasound for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities: German multi-reader study.
    Acta Radiol
    2018
    59
    782
    788
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  95. Heywang-Köbrunner
    S
    ,  
    Jaensch
    A
    ,  
    Hacker
    A
    ,  
    et al
    Value of digital breast tomosynthesis versus additional views for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities - a first analysis.
    Breast Care (Basel)
    2017
    12
    92
    97
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  96. Brandt
    KR
    ,  
    Craig
    DA
    ,  
    Hoskins
    TL
    ,  
    et al
    Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol
    2013
    200
    291
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  97. Cornford
    EJ
    ,  
    Turnbull
    AE
    ,  
    James
    JJ
    ,  
    et al
    Accuracy of GE digital breast tomosynthesis vs supplementary mammographic views for diagnosis of screen-detected soft-tissue breast lesions.
    Br J Radiol
    2016
    89
    20150735
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  98. Woolf
    S
    ,  
    Schünemann
    HJ
    ,  
    Eccles
    MP
    ,  
    et al
    Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations.
    Implement Sci
    2012
    7
    61
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  99. Practice bulletin no. 179 summary: breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women.
    Obstet Gynecol
    2017
    130
    241
    243
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  100. Qaseem
    A
    ,  
    Lin
    JS
    ,  
    Mustafa
    RA
    ,  
    et al
    Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians
    Screening for breast cancer in average-risk women: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians.
    Ann Intern Med
    2019
    170
    547
    560
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  101. Oeffinger
    KC
    ,  
    Fontham
    ET
    ,  
    Etzioni
    R
    ,  
    et al
    American Cancer Society
    Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.
    JAMA
    2015
    314
    1599
    614
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  102. Mainiero
    MB
    ,  
    Moy
    L
    ,  
    Baron
    P
    .  
    Expert Panel on Breast Imaging
    ACR Appropriateness Criteria® breast cancer screening.
    J Am Coll Radiol
    2017
    14
    S383
    S390
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  103. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer. Version 2.2018. Accessed at www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf on 7 June 2018.
  104. World Health Organization. WHO Position Paper on Mammography Screening. Accessed at www.who.int/cancer/publications/mammography_screening/en on 20 June 2018.
  105. Nelson
    HD
    ,  
    Fu
    R
    ,  
    Cantor
    A
    ,  
    et al
    Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation.
    Ann Intern Med
    2016
    164
    244
    55
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  106. Klarenbach
    S
    ,  
    Sims-Jones
    N
    ,  
    Lewin
    G
    ,  
    et al
    Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.
    CMAJ
    2018
    190
    E1441
    E1451
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  107. Schünemann
    HJ
    ,  
    Wiercioch
    W
    ,  
    Brozek
    J
    ,  
    et al
    GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT.
    J Clin Epidemiol
    2017
    81
    101
    110
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed

Table 1. Multiple-Intervention Comparison of Desirable and Undesirable Consequences of Annual, Biennial, and Triennial Mammography Screening for Women Aged 45 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70 to 74 Years

Table 1. Multiple-Intervention Comparison of Desirable and Undesirable Consequences of Annual, Biennial, and Triennial Mammography Screening for Women Aged 45 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70 to 74 Years

Table 2. Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Women*

Table 2. Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Women*
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement. Supplemental Appendix

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

1 Comment

Richard M Fleming, PhD, MD, JD

FHHI-OI-Camelot

November 26, 2019

Conflict of Interest: Acknowledgment: FMTVDM is issued to first author.

FMTVDM - It’s time to quit screening and start diagnosing Breast Cancer.

FMTVDM - It’s time to quit screening and start diagnosing Breast Cancer.

For decades we have been running screening tests looking for cancer, allowing physicians to make an educated guess as to whether we think you do or don’t have cancer. If we think the patient might have cancer, then we run more tests to find out. Alternatively, if we think the patient probably doesn’t have cancer, we wait –so too does the patient and their family. The entire concept of using screening tests is archaic and anything but comfortable if you’re the patient.

The acceptance of screening tests is primarily based on the use of qualitative tests – tests that we look at, or blood tests. Is there something on the stool guaiac? Is it blood, iron, too much pepto bismol? Is the PSA elevated? Is it prostate cancer, prostatitis, BPH, too much exercise? In keeping with these Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines – the question becomes, just what is that questionable area on the mammogram – is it calcium, dense tissue, inflammation, cancer or nothing?

The process of developing cancer is not an overnight, yes - no phenomena; although that is how we’ve been treating it [1]. Cancer is the result of the interaction between the genetics of a cell – which is unique for each individual – and the cellular environment. That cellular environment is similarly unique and is the result of the air you breathe, the food you eat, the oxidative stress your body is experiencing at the moment, is there infection, et cetera [2].

Rather than using a qualitative screening approach, with the associated problems with sensitivity (we missed your disease) and specificity (we told you there was a problem when there wasn’t), and the resulting personal, psychological, physical, financial, family, work costs – if we’re really interested in informed decision making, we should be focusing less on screening and more on actually measuring what’s happening in the body. To do that requires quantitative measurement -now made possible using FMTVDM [3].

FMTVDM measures changes in tissue metabolism and the resulting regional blood flow differences (RBFDs) that are associated with the development of both cancer and coronary artery disease [4].

By measuring what’s actually happening at the tissue level, we can tell someone where on the health-spectrum he or she actually is [1,2]. Consequently, we can also measure whether their treatment is working – thereby saving time, money and lives – thus providing true patient-specific, patient-guided treatment. By actually measuring what’s happening in each individual, we can do better than a screening guess – we can make a truly informed diagnostic decision and so can the patient.

Acknowledgment: FMTVDM is issued to first author.

References:

1. Fleming RM, Fleming MR, Chaudhuri TK, McKusick A. Cancer: Our Body’s Global Warming Warning. Biomed Research. Open
Acc J Oncol Med 2019;3(1):238-239. DOI: 10.32474/OAJOM.2019.03.000154
2. Fleming RM, Fleming MR. The Importance of Thinking about and Quantifying Disease like Cancer and Heart Disease on a “Health-Spectrum” Continuum. J Compr Cancer Rep 2019;3(1):1-3 (Article ID 100011).
3. The Fleming Method for Tissue and Vascular Differentiation and Metabolism (FMTVDM) using same state single or sequential quantification comparisons. Patent Number 9566037. Issued 02/14/2017.
4. Fleming RM, Fleming MR, Chaudhuri TK. The Similarities in Coronary Artery Disease and Cancer. Acta Scientific Med Sci. 2019;Special Issue 1:03-04. DOI:10.31080/ASMS.2019.S01.0002.

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Schünemann HJ, Lerda D, Quinn C, et al, for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Contributor Group. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2019;:. [Epub ahead of print 26 November 2019]. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-2125

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2019.

DOI: 10.7326/M19-2125

©
2019 American College of Physicians
0 Citations

See Also

What Do the European Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Portend for U.S. Practice?
View MoreView Less

Related Articles

Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Mammography Breast Cancer Screening
Annals of Internal Medicine; 148 (1): 1-10
Should This Woman With Dense Breasts Receive Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Annals of Internal Medicine; 169 (7): 474-484
Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Annals of Internal Medicine; 164 (4): 268-278
Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies
Annals of Internal Medicine; 164 (4): 215-225
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

Annual mammography screening did not reduce long-term breast cancer mortality in women 40 to 59 years of age
Annals of Internal Medicine; 160 (10): JC7
Review: In women 50 to 69 y of age at average risk, mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality
Annals of Internal Medicine; 164 (8): JC38
Review: Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality in women at average risk
Annals of Internal Medicine; 164 (6): JC26
Annual mammography in women 40 to 48 y of age reduced breast cancer mortality at 10 y but not at a median 17.7 y
Annals of Internal Medicine; 163 (12): JC3
View MoreView Less

Related Point of Care

Breast Cancer Screening and Prevention
Annals of Internal Medicine; 164 (11): ITC81-ITC96
Breast Cancer Screening and Prevention
Annals of Internal Medicine; 152 (7): ITC4-1
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

Breast Cancer
Cancer Screening/Prevention
Guidelines
Hematology/Oncology
Prevention/Screening

Breast Cancer, Cancer Screening/Prevention, Guidelines, Hematology/Oncology, Prevention/Screening.

PubMed Articles

Knowledge and Environment for Breast Feeding.
J Korean Med Sci 2019;34(45):e305.
Breastfeeding Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice among White-Collar and Blue-Collar Workers in Indonesia.
J Korean Med Sci 2019;34(45):e284.
View More

Results provided by: PubMed

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Latest RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards and Cover

  • Personae (Cover Photo)
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×