Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJames, Jonathan
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-13T11:03:12Z
dc.date.available2023-03-13T11:03:12Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationGilbert, F.J., Hickman, S.E., Baxter, G.C., Allajbeu, I., James, J., Caraco, C. and Vinnicombe, S. (2021) 'Opportunities in cancer imaging: risk-adapted breast imaging in screening', Clinical Radiology, 76(10), pp. 763-773. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2021.02.013.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1365-229X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/16388
dc.description.abstractIn the UK, women between 50-70 years are invited for 3-yearly mammography screening irrespective of their likelihood of developing breast cancer. The only risk adaption is for women with >30% lifetime risk who are offered annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography, and annual mammography for some moderate-risk women. Using questionnaires, breast density, and polygenic risk scores, it is possible to stratify the population into the lowest 20% risk, who will develop <4% of cancers and the top 4%, who will develop 18% of cancers. Mammography is a good screening test but has low sensitivity of 60% in the 9% of women with the highest category of breast density (BIRADS D) who have a 2.5- to fourfold breast cancer risk. There is evidence that adding ultrasound to the screening mammogram can increase the cancer detection rate and reduce advanced stage interval and next round cancers. Similarly, alternative tests such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) or abbreviated MRI (ABB-MRI) are much more effective in detecting cancer in women with dense breasts. Scintimammography has been shown to be a viable alternative for dense breasts or for follow-up in those with a personal history of breast cancer and scarring as result of treatment. For supplemental screening to be worthwhile in these women, new technologies need to reduce the number of stage II cancers and be cost effective when tested in large scale trials. This article reviews the evidence for supplemental imaging and examines whether a risk-stratified approach is feasible. Copyright © 2021 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2021.02.013en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Ltd.en_US
dc.subjectBreast canceren_US
dc.subjectMagnetic resonance imagingen_US
dc.subjectMammographyen_US
dc.titleOpportunities in cancer imaging: Risk-adapted breast imaging in screeningen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.crad.2021.02.013en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFCD2023-03-13T11:03:12Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
html.description.abstractIn the UK, women between 50-70 years are invited for 3-yearly mammography screening irrespective of their likelihood of developing breast cancer. The only risk adaption is for women with >30% lifetime risk who are offered annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography, and annual mammography for some moderate-risk women. Using questionnaires, breast density, and polygenic risk scores, it is possible to stratify the population into the lowest 20% risk, who will develop <4% of cancers and the top 4%, who will develop 18% of cancers. Mammography is a good screening test but has low sensitivity of 60% in the 9% of women with the highest category of breast density (BIRADS D) who have a 2.5- to fourfold breast cancer risk. There is evidence that adding ultrasound to the screening mammogram can increase the cancer detection rate and reduce advanced stage interval and next round cancers. Similarly, alternative tests such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) or abbreviated MRI (ABB-MRI) are much more effective in detecting cancer in women with dense breasts. Scintimammography has been shown to be a viable alternative for dense breasts or for follow-up in those with a personal history of breast cancer and scarring as result of treatment. For supplemental screening to be worthwhile in these women, new technologies need to reduce the number of stage II cancers and be cost effective when tested in large scale trials. This article reviews the evidence for supplemental imaging and examines whether a risk-stratified approach is feasible. Copyright © 2021 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record