Commentary ACOG Practice Bulletin July 2017: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women.

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality in average-risk women. However, adverse consequences include false-positive findings possibly leading to benign breast biopsies and patient anxiety. There is also potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Differences in how to balance benefits and harms have led to varying recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American Cancer Society, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Radiology/Society of Breast Imaging. These recommendations differ with respect to what age to start, what age to stop, and frequency of screening in average-risk women. Most recently, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have issued updated clinical management guidelines for breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women that aim to maximize the benefits of screening while keeping in mind the potential harms of false-positive results. This commentary summarizes the clinical management guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin July 2017 for breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women. We review evidence of the benefits and adverse consequences of screening mammography and briefly discuss new advances in breast cancer screening with recent technologies such digital breast tomosynthesis and risk-adapted screening.

Mammography and the risk of thyroid and hematological cancers: a nationwide population-based study.

To investigate the association between thyroid cancer as well as the most radiosensitive hematological cancers and radiation exposure from mammography. This study used information from a random sample of two million persons enrolled in the nationally representative Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI) Research Database. The exposed group was composed of women aged 18-65 who had undergone diagnostic mammography between 2000 and 2007. The nonexposed control group was composed of women in the NHI database who had never undergone diagnostic mammography. There were 25,362 women in the exposed group and 203,317 women in the nonexposed group. After adjusting for age and comorbidities, the patients who had been exposed to radiation from mammography did not have a significantly higher risk of developing thyroid cancer and hematological cancers (adjusted HR, 1.201; 95% CI, 0.813-1.774 for thyroid cancer and adjusted HR, 1.228; 95% CI, 0.838-1.800 for hematological cancers). The scattered radiation dose delivered by mammography should be cautiously handled, but no additional concerns about the risk of thyroid cancer developing malignancy should be emphasized.

Radioactive seed localization with 125I for nonpalpable lesions prior to breast lumpectomy and/or excisional biopsy: methodology, safety, and experience of initial year.

The use of radioactive seed localization (RSL) as an alternative to wire localizations (WL) for nonpalpable breast lesions is rapidly gaining acceptance because of its advantages for both the patient and the surgical staff. This paper examines the initial experience with over 1,200 patients seen at a comprehensive cancer center. Radiation safety procedures for radiology, surgery, and pathology were implemented, and radioactive material inventory control was maintained using an intranet-based program. Surgical probes allowed for discrimination between 125I seed photon energies from 99mTc administered for sentinel node testing. A total of 1,127 patients (median age of 57.2 y) underwent RSL procedures with 1,223 seeds implanted. Implanted seed depth ranged from 10.3-107.8 mm. The median length of time from RSL implant to surgical excision was 2 d. The median 125I activity at time of implant was 3.1 MBq (1.9 to 4.6). The median dose rate from patients with a single seed was 9.5 µSv h-1 and 0.5 µSv h-1 at contact and 1 m, respectively. The maximum contact dose rate was 187 µSv h-1 from a superficially placed seed. RSL performed greater than 1 d before surgery is a viable alternative to WL, allowing flexibility in scheduling, minimizing day of surgery procedures, and improving workflow in breast imaging and surgery. RSL has been shown to be a safe and effective procedure for preoperative localization under mammographic and ultrasound guidance, which can be managed with the use of customized radiation protection controls.

Mammograms and bloodletting: less can be more.

Bloodletting has been used extensively throughout history and across cultures. When viewed as a panacea, it is dangerous. When used strategically, it can be life saving. Likewise, mammography has come to be viewed as essential for detection of breast cancer. Research and holistic understanding of prevention and detection of disease challenges this viewpoint. Safer options for breast cancer screening are available.

Screening mammography for frail older women: what are the burdens?

OBJECTIVE: The potential benefits and harms of screening mammography in frail older women are unknown. Therefore, we studied the outcomes of a screening mammography policy that was instituted in a population of community-living nursing home-eligible women as a result of requirements of state auditors. We focused on the potential burdens that may be experienced. METHODS: Between January 1995 and December 1997, we identified 216 consecutive women who underwent screening mammography after enrolling in a program designed to provide comprehensive care to nursing home-eligible patients who wished to stay at home. Mammograms were performed at 4 radiology centers. From computerized medical records, we tracked each woman through September 1999 for performance and results of mammography, additional breast imaging and biopsies, documentation of psychological reactions to screening, as well as vital status. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. RESULTS: The mean age of the 216 women was 81 years. Sixty-three percent were Asian, 91% were dependent in at least 1 activity of daily living, 49% had cognitive impairment, and 11% died within 2 years. Thirty-eight women (18%) had abnormal mammograms requiring further work-up. Of these women, 6 refused work-up, 28 were found to have false-positive mammograms after further evaluation, 1 was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 3 were diagnosed with local breast cancer. The woman diagnosed with DCIS and 1 woman diagnosed with breast cancer were classified as not having benefited, because screening identified clinically insignificant disease that would not have caused symptoms in the women's lifetimes, since these women died of unrelated causes within 2 years of diagnosis. Therefore, 36 women (17%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12 to 22) experienced burden from screening mammography (28 underwent work-up for false-positive mammograms, 6 refused further work-up of an abnormal mammogram, and 2 had clinically insignificant cancers identified and treated). Forty-two percent of these women had chart-documented pain or psychological distress as a result of screening. Two women (0.9%; 95% CI, 0 to 2) may have received benefit from screening mammography. CONCLUSION: We conclude that screening mammography in frail older women frequently necessitates work-up that does not result in benefit, raising questions about policies that use the rate of screening mammograms as an indicator of the quality of care in this population. Encouraging individualized decisions may be more appropriate and may allow screening to be targeted to older women for whom the potential benefit outweighs the potential burdens.

Office-based wire-guided open breast biopsy under local anesthesia is accurate and cost effective.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic abnormalities found to be malignant by stereotactic biopsy still require a wire-guided biopsy (WGB) in most cases. We have previously described a simplified method of WGB that allows the procedure to be done with a minimum of dissection and under local anesthesia in the office setting. We hypothesized that this procedure can be used to produce cost-effective, office-based breast preservation therapy (BPT). METHODS: We reviewed our recent experience with this WGB method to determine applicability and accuracy in the office setting. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed to determine potential charge reductions when this method is used to avoid operating room (OR) usage for either lumpectomy or lumpectomy plus sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). RESULTS: Of the 164 biopsies reviewed, 114 (70%) were performed in the office setting under local anesthesia and 50 (30%) were performed in the OR. The most common reasons for choosing the OR setting included performance of biopsy during an unrelated procedure requiring the OR (16 cases), patient preference (12), deep lesions (6), and the inability of the patient to cooperate with local anesthesia (5). The complication rates were similar between the two settings (7% for office-based and 4% for OR; P = 0.697), and in neither setting were any lesions missed. A cost-effectiveness analysis using our Current Procedure Terminology (CPT)-based charges revealed a potential per-case charge reduction of $4,632 for office-based lumpectomy and $4306 for office-based lumpectomy/SLNB, using our method of WGB and local anesthesia, compared with the OR setting. CONCLUSIONS: Office-based WGB using our previously described method is accurate and can be applied to at least 70% of patients. Based on the favorable results of our cost analysis and rising support for SLNB, we anticipate increased utilization of the clinic setting and local anesthesia for BPT in the future.