DIAGNOSTIC METHODS IN BREAST CANCER DETECTION
Abstract
Background. In the world as well as in Slovenia, breast cancer is the most frequent female cancer. Due to its high incidence, it appears to be a serious health and economic problem.
Content. Among other, tumour size at diagnosis, is an important prognostic factors of the course of the disease. The probability of axillary lymph node involvement as well as distant metastases is greater in larger tumours. This is the reason that encouraged the development of various diagnostic methods for early detection of small, clinically non-palpable breast tumours. Mammography, however, remains the »golden standard« of early breast cancer detection. It is the basic diagnostic method applied in all symptomatic women over 35 years of age and in asymptomatic women over 40 years of age. Ultrasonography (US), additional projections, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ductography are regarded as complementary diagnostic breast imaging techniques in addition to mammography. The detected changes in the breast can be further confirmed by US-, MR-guided or stereotactic biopsy. If necessary, surgical biopsy and the excision of a tissue sample, after wire or isotope localisation of the nonpalpable lesion, can be performed.
Conclusions. Any of the above mentioned diagnostic methods has advantages as well as drawbacks and only detailed knowledge and understanding of each of them may assure the best option.
Downloads
References
Incidenca raka v Sloveniji 2006. Ljubljana: Onkološki inštitut,
Register raka za Slovenijo, 2009.
Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC. The Natural
History of Breast Carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 86: 449–62.
Yankaskas BC, Schell MJ, Bird RE, Desrochers DA. Reassessment
of breast cancers missed during routine screening mammography.
AJR 2001; 177: 535 –41.
Taft R, Taylor A. Potential improvement in breast cancer detection
with a novel computer-aided detection system. Appl Radiol
; 30(12): 25–8.
Otten JD, van Dijck JA, Peer PG, Straatman H, Verbeek AL, Mravunac
M et al. Long term breast cancer screening in Nijmegen
The Netherlands: the nine rounds from 1975–92. Epidemiol
Community Health 1996; 50: 353–8.
Heywang-Kobrunner S, Schreer I, Dershaw DD. Diagnostic breast
imaging. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 1997. p. 102–22.
Feig SA. Age-related accuracy of screening mammography: How
should it be measured? Radiology 2000; 214: 633–40.
Baines CJ, Vidmar M, McKeown-Eyssen G, Tibshirani R. Impact
of menstrual phase on false-negative mammograms in the Canadian
National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1997; 80: 720–4.
Kavanagh AM, Mitchell H, Giles GG. Hormone replacement
therapy and accuracy of mammographic screening. Lancet 2000;
: 270–4.
World Health Organization: International Agency for Research
on Cancer. Breast cancer screening. IARC handbooks on cancer
prevention. Lyon: IARC Press; 2002. p. 179–81.
Harvey SC, Geller B, Oppenheimer RG, Pinet M, Riddell L, Garra
B. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent
double interpretation of screening mammography. AJR 2003;
:1461–7.
Guna F. Ultrazvočna anatomija dojke, inštrumentacija in tehnika
sonomamografije. In: Rener M, Vargazon T, Kadivec M, eds.
Šola mamografske diagnostike. Radiol Oncol 1998; 32 suppl 7:
–4.
Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, Catzavelos GC, Di Prospero LS,
Yaffe MJ et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging,
mammography and ultrasound for surveillance of women
at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. Clinic Oncol 2001; 19:
–31.
Malich A, Boehm T, Facius M, Freesmeyer MG, Fleck M, Anderson
R et al. Differentiation of mammographically suspicious lesion:
Evaluation of breast ultrasound, MRI mammography and electrical
impedance scanning as adjunctive technologies in breast
cancer detection. Clinical Radiology 2001; 56: 278–83.
Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D'Hoore W et
al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography
of nonpalpable breast cancers: The importance of radiologic
breast density. AJR 2003; 180: 1675–9.
Gerson ES, Berg WA. Screening breast sonography. AJR 2003;
: 1477–8.
Rener M, Kocijančič I: Mamografija – kdaj in zakaj. Onkologija
; 7: 31–4.
Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, Kempe A, Wardelmann
E, Hocke A et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women
proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast susceptibility
gene-preliminary results. Radiology 2000; 215: 267–79.
Heywang-Kobruner SH, Schreer I, Dershaw DD. Perkutaneous
biopsy methods. In: Heywang-Kobruner SH, Schreer I, Dershaw
DD, eds. Diagnostic breast imaging. Stuttgart: Thieme Verlag;
: 101–20.
The Author transfers to the Publisher (Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal) all economic copyrights following form Article 22 of the Slovene Copyright and Related Rights Act (ZASP), including the right of reproduction, the right of distribution, the rental right, the right of public performance, the right of public transmission, the right of public communication by means of phonograms and videograms, the right of public presentation, the right of broadcasting, the right of rebroadcasting, the right of secondary broadcasting, the right of communication to the public, the right of transformation, the right of audiovisual adaptation and all other rights of the author according to ZASP.
The aforementioned rights are transferred non-exclusively, for an unlimited number of editions, for the term of the statutory
The Author can make use of his work himself or transfer subjective rights to others only after 3 months from date of first publishing in the journal Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal.
The Publisher (Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal) has the right to transfer the rights, acquired parties without explicit consent of the Author.
The Author consents that the Article be published under the Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0 (attribution-non-commercial) or comparable licence.
