Identification of Populations at Risk for "Choosing Un-Wisely": A SEER Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2016, the Choosing Wisely campaign has recommended against routine axillary surgery in elderly patients with early stage, hormone receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. The objective was to evaluate factors associated with axillary surgery in breast cancer patients meeting criteria for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) omission and identify potential disparities. METHODS: Female patients age ≥70 years with cT1-2N0M0, ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer diagnosed after publication of the Choosing Wisely recommendations, between 2016 and 2019, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics associated with axillary surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 31 756 patients meeting omission criteria, 25 771 (81.2%) underwent axillary surgery. Hispanic ethnicity, median household income between $35,000 and $70,000, treatment in rural areas, poor differentiation, lobular and mixed lobular with ductal histology, T2 tumors, radiation therapy, and systemic therapy were factors associated with receiving axillary surgery on multivariable analysis. In the axillary surgery cohort, a median of 2 (IQR = 2) nodes were examined and 529 (2.1%) patients were found to have 1 or more positive lymph nodes. DISCUSSION: Among elderly patients meeting Choosing Wisely criteria for SLNB omission, particular racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic populations may be at increased risk for potential over treatment. Identification of these factors provides specific opportunities for education and implementation of de-escalation of unnecessary procedures.

A phase II trial of gemcitabine and erlotinib followed by ChemoProton therapy plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in pancreatic cancer. EGFR expression plays a potentially important role in modulation of tumor sensitivity to either chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Erlotinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with specificity for EGFR/HER1. A phase II trial was conducted to explore the efficacy of a regimen utilizing erlotinib and proton therapy. Methods: Patients with unresectable or borderline resectable non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were included. Patients received 8-week systemic treatment with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and erlotinib 100 mg (GE). If there was no evidence of metastatic disease after GE, then patients preceded with proton therapy to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent capecitabine 825 mg/m2 (CPT). This was followed with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 (CapOx) for 4 cycles. The primary study objective was 1-year overall survival (OS). The benchmark was 43% 1-year survival as demonstrated in RTOG/NRG 98-12. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year OS and the median OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: The study enrolled 9 patients ages 47-81 years old (median 62) between January 2013 and March 2016, when the trial was closed due to low patient accrual. The 1-year OS rate was 55.6% (95% CI: 31% to 99%). The median OS was 14.1 months (95% CI: 11.4-NE) and the median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 7.44-NE). A majority of patients completed CPT and GE, but only 33.3% completed the four cycles of CapOx. A third of patients experienced grade 3 toxicities, which were all hepatic along with one patient who also had grade 3 diarrhea. There were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Four patients were enrolled with borderline resectable disease, three of which were eligible for pancreaticoduodenectomy after GE and CPT treatment. One of two patients who underwent resection had a negative margin. Conclusions: This regimen for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) exceeded the pre-specified benchmark and was safe and well tolerated. Additional investigations utilizing more current systemic treatment regimens with proton therapy are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCTNCT01683422).

Omission of Radiation in Conservative Treatment for Breast Cancer: Opportunity for De-escalation of Care.

INTRODUCTION: De-escalation of breast cancer treatment aims to reduce patient and financial toxicity without compromising outcomes. Level I evidence and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines support omission of adjuvant radiation in patients aged >70 y with hormone-sensitive, pT1N0M0 invasive breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy. We evaluated radiation use in patients eligible for guideline concordant omission of radiation. METHODS: Subgroup analysis of patients eligible for radiation omission from two pooled randomized controlled trials, which included stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery, was performed to evaluate factors associated with radiation use. RESULTS: Of 631 patients, 47 (7.4%) met radiation omission criteria and were treated by 14 surgeons at eight institutions. The mean age was 75.3 (standard deviation + 4.4) y. Majority of patients identified as White (n = 46; 97.9%) and non-Hispanic (n = 44; 93.6%). The mean tumor size was 1.0 cm; 37 patients (88.1%) had ductal, 4 patients (9.5%) had lobular, and 17 patients (40.5%) had low-grade disease. Among patients eligible for radiation omission, 34 (72.3%) patients received adjuvant radiation. Those who received radiation were significantly younger than those who did not (74 y, interquartile range = 4 y, versus 78 y, interquartile range = 11 y, P = 0.03). There was no difference in radiation use based on size (P = 0.4), histology (P = 0.5), grade (P = 0.7), race (P = 1), ethnicity (P = 0.6), institution (P = 0.1), gender of the surgeon (P = 0.7), or surgeon (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 10% of patients undergoing breast conservation met criteria for radiation omission. Nearly three-quarters received radiation therapy with younger age being a driver of radiation use, suggesting ample opportunity for de-escalation, particularly among younger eligible patients.

Are we choosing wisely? Drivers of preoperative MRI use in breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Factors contributing to the use of preoperative MRI remain poorly understood. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial of stage 0-3 breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery between 2016 and 2018 were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 396 patients in this trial, 32.6% had a preoperative MRI. Patient age, race, ethnicity, tumor histology, and use of neoadjuvant therapy were significant predictors of MRI use. On multivariate analysis, younger patients with invasive lobular tumors were more likely to have a preoperative MRI. Rates also varied significantly by individual surgeon (p < 0.001); in particular, female surgeons (39.9% vs. 24.0% for male surgeons, p = 0.001) and those in community practice (58.9% vs. 14.2% for academic, p < 0.001) were more likely to order preoperative MRI. Rates declined over the two years of the study, particularly among female surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI varies with patient age and tumor histology; however, there remains variability by individual surgeon.

Factors Affecting Time to Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine factors affecting time to surgery (TTS) to identify potential modifiable factors to improve timeliness of care. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage 0-3 breast cancer undergoing partial mastectomy in 2 clinical trials, conducted in ten centers across the US, were analyzed. No preoperative workup was mandated by the study; those receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. RESULTS: The median TTS among the 583 patients in this cohort was 34 days (range: 1-289). Patient age, race, tumor palpability, and genomic subtype did not influence timeliness of care defined as TTS ≤30 days. Hispanic patients less likely to have a TTS ≤30 days (P = .001). There was significant variation in TTS by surgeon (P < .001); those practicing in an academic center more likely to have TTS ≤30 days than those in a community setting (55.1% vs 19.3%, P < .001). Patients who had a preoperative ultrasound had a similar TTS to those who did not (TTS ≤30 days 41.9% vs 51.9%, respectively, P = .109), but those who had a preoperative MRI had a significantly increased TTS (TTS ≤30 days 25.0% vs 50.9%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, patient ethnicity was no longer significantly associated with TTS ≤30 (P = .150). Rather, use of MRI (OR: .438; 95% CI: .287-.668, P < .001) and community practice type (OR: .324; 95% CI: .194-.541, P < .001) remained independent predictors of lower likelihood of TTS ≤30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI significantly increases time to surgery; surgeons should consider this in deciding on its use.

Diversity in Scientific Discovery.

Presented here is a brief discussion on the imperative need and thoughtful approaches to embracing diversity, equity and inclusion within scientific enquiry.

Resection of Cavity Shave Margins in Stage 0-III Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Single-center studies have demonstrated that resection of cavity shave margins (CSM) halves the rate of positive margins and re-excision in breast cancer patients undergoing partial mastectomy (PM). We sought to determine if these findings were externally generalizable across practice settings. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial occurring in 9 centers across the United States, stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing PM were randomly assigned to either have resection of CSM ("shave" group) or not ("no shave" group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively, after the surgeon had completed their standard PM. Primary outcome measures were positive margin and re-excision rates. RESULTS: Between July 28, 2016 and April 13, 2018, 400 patients were enrolled in this trial. Four patients (2 in each arm) did not meet inclusion criteria after randomization, leaving 396 patients for analysis: 196 in the "shave" group and 200 to the "no shave" group. Median patient age was 65 years (range; 29-94). Groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinicopathologic factors. Prior to randomization, positive margin rates were similar in the "shave" and "no shave" groups (76/196 (38.8%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), respectively, P = 0.604). After randomization, those in the "shave" group were significantly less likely than those in the "no shave" group to have positive margins (19/196 (9.7%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), P < 0.001), and to require re-excision or mastectomy for margin clearance (17/196 (8.7%) vs. 47/200 (23.5%), P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Resection of CSM significantly reduces positive margin and re-excision rates in patients undergoing PM.

Do Better Operative Reports Equal Better Surgery? A Comparative Evaluation of Compliance With Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery.

To improve the quality of cancer operations, the American College of Surgeons published Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, which has been incorporated into Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation requirements. We sought to determine if compliance with operative standards was associated with technical surgical outcomes. Oncologic operative reports from 2017 at a CoC and non-CoC institution were examined for documentation of Operative Standards essential steps. Lymph node (LN) yield for lung and colon cases and re-excision rates for breast cases were recorded. Correct documentation was poor for colon, breast, and lung cases with numerous elements documented in <10% of operative reports at both centers. For lung cases, there was no significant difference in meeting ≥10 LN benchmark or average LN yield between the 2 institutions. For colon cases, average lymph node yield was lower in the non-CoC facility, but there was no significant difference in meeting ≥12 LN benchmark. For breast cases, re-excision rates were similar in both programs. Many essential steps in Operative Standards were poorly documented in operative reports, regardless of CoC status. Achieving benchmark technical surgical outcomes was not associated with documented compliance with these standards. Whether improved documentation leads to better surgical outcomes requires further investigation.

Role of lymph node ratio in selection of adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy vs. chemoradiation) in patients with resected gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials have failed to show a survival difference between adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with resected gastric cancer (GC). However, a subset of patients with lymph node (LN) positive disease may still benefit from CRT. Additional evidence is needed to help guide physicians in identifying patients in whom CRT should be considered. Our objective was then to compare survival outcomes based on lymph node ratio (LNR) (ratio of metastatic to harvested LNs) for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma treated with surgery and either CT or CRT. METHODS: This retrospective population-based study used California Cancer Registry (CCR) data from 2004 to 2013. It included 1,493 patients diagnosed with stage IB-III gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma and treated with CT or CRT following total or partial gastrectomy. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome and GC-specific survival was secondary. Mortality hazards ratios (HR) for these outcomes were computed using propensity score weighted Cox regression models, stratified by LNR strata categories as 0%, 1-9%, 10-25% and >25%. RESULTS: Out of 1,493 patients that met inclusion criteria, 462 were treated with CT while 1,031 received CRT. Median follow-up for all subjects was 76 months and median survival was 54 months for CRT and 35 for the CT cohort, P<0.001. Compared to CT, CRT was associated with improved survival among patients with LNR of 10-25% [HR =0.62 (95% CI, 0.46-0.83)] and >25% [HR =0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.80)]. Similar findings were observed for GC-specific survival and for analyses limited to patients that had at least 15 LNs evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: LNR appears to be a simple and readily available measure that could be used in treatment planning for resected GC. CRT offers significant survival advantage over CT among patients with high LN disease burden (LNR of ≥10%).

Comparison of perioperative chemotherapy with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: findings from a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Both perioperative chemotherapy (PC) and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improve survival in resectable gastric cancer; however, these treatments have never been formally compared. Our objective was to evaluate treatment trends and compare survival outcomes for gastric cancer patients treated with surgery and either PC or CRT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study between 2007 through 2013 using California Cancer Registry data. Patients diagnosed with stage IB-III gastric adenocarcinoma and treated with total or partial gastrectomy were eligible for this study. Based on the type of treatment received, patients were grouped into surgery-only, PC, or CRT. Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and gastric cancer-specific survival (GCCS) respectively. Mortality hazards ratios (HRs) for each of these outcomes were computed using propensity score weighted and covariate-adjusted Cox regression models, stratified by clinical node status. RESULTS: Of 2,146 patients who underwent surgical resection, 1,067 had surgery-only, while 771 and 308 received PC or CRT, respectively. Median OS was 25, 33, and 52 months for surgery-only, PC, and CRT, respectively; P<0.001. Overall, patients treated with PC had significantly poorer survival compared to CRT (HR =1.45; 95% CI: 1.22-1.73). PC was also associated with higher mortality in patients with signet ring histology (HR =1.66; 95% CI: 1.21-2.28) and clinical node negative cancer (HR =1.85; 95% CI: 1.32-2.60). Survival was not different between PC vs. CRT in clinical node positive patients (HR =1.29; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Of note, the percentage of patients receiving PC increased from 17.5% in 2007-2008, to 41.5% in 2013-2014; P<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rapid adoption of PC, overall, CRT is associated with better survival than PC. Specifically, clinical node negative and signet ring histology patients had better survival when treated with CRT compared to PC. Based on these findings, we recommend against indiscriminate adoption of PC and consideration for CRT over PC in clinical node negative patients.

Neoadjuvant treatment for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States in both men and women, with a 5-year survival rate of less than 5%. Surgical resection remains the only curative treatment, but most patients develop systemic recurrence within 2 years of surgery. Adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy has been shown to improve overall survival, but the delivery of treatment remains problematic with up to 50% of patients not receiving postoperative treatment. Neoadjuvant therapy can provide benefits of eradication of micrometastasis and improved delivery of intended treatment. We have reviewed the findings from completed neoadjuvant clinical trials, and discussed the ongoing studies. Combinational cytotoxic chemotherapy such as fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel, active in the metastatic setting, are being studied in the neoadjuvant setting. In addition, novel targeted agents such as inhibitor of immune checkpoint are incorporated with cytotoxic chemotherapy in early-phase clinical trial. Furthermore we have explored the utility of biomarkers which can personalize treatment and select patients for target-driven therapy to improve treatment outcome. The treatment of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma requires multidisciplinary approach and novel strategies including innovative trials to make progress.

Initial Results of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome.

Multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk has recently become commercially available; however, the impact of its use on patient care is undefined. We sought to evaluate results from implementation of panel testing in a multidisciplinary cancer center. We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing genetic testing after initiating use of multigene panel testing at Loma Linda University Medical Center. From February 13 to August 25, 2014, 92 patients were referred for genetic testing based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Testing was completed in 90 patients. Overall, nine (10%) pathogenic mutations were identified: five BRCA1/2, and four in non-BRCA loci. Single-site testing identified one BRCA1 and one BRCA2 mutation. The remaining mutations were identified by use of panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. There were 40 variants of uncertain significance identified in 34 patients. The use of panel testing more than doubled the identification rate of clinically significant pathogenic mutations that would have been missed with BRCA testing alone. The large number of variants of uncertain significance identified will require long-term follow-up for potential reclassification. Multigene panel testing provides additional information that may improve patient outcomes.

Rate of re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for invasive lobular carcinoma.

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) accounts for approximately 5 to 20 per cent of all breast cancers and is often multicentric. Despite pre- and intraoperative assessments to achieve negative margins, ILC is reported to be associated with higher rates of positive margin. This cross-sectional study examined patients with breast cancer treated at our institution from 2000 to 2010. The objective was to investigate the rate of re-excision resulting from positive or close margin (1 mm or less) in patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ILC compared with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Of the 836 patients treated, 416 patients underwent BCS. The rate of re-excision after BCS for ILC was 35.1 versus 17.7 per cent for IDC and 20.0 per cent for DCIS (P = 0.04). Re-excisions were more often performed for positive margin in patients with ILC (11 of 37 [29.7%]) versus IDC (36 of 334 [10.8%]) and DCIS (five of 45 [11.1%];(P = 0.004). In this single-institution review, BCS for ILC had significantly higher rates of re-excision as a result of positive margins when compared with IDC and DCIS. Tumor size greater than 2 cm and lymph node involvement were identified as factors associated with positive surgical margin in ILC. The higher possibility of positive margins and the need for additional procedures should be discussed with patients undergoing BCS for ILC.

Influence of treatment modality in outcomes for different stages of resectable esophageal adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the most effective modality for the treatment of resectable esophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC). We theorized that treatment modality may influence survival differently depending on the stage of disease. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective examination of resectable EAC between 2000 and 2008 was performed. Resectable EAC were stratified into early disease (stage 2a or less) and late disease (stage 2b or more) based on pretreatment endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Patients with T4, >N2, and/or distant disease were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were included in this study. Most patients were white (97 %), male (83 %), and over 60 years of age (51 %). Patients with early disease on pretreatment EUS exhibited improved overall survival compared to patients with late disease (P < 0.001). Irrespective of treatment modality, there were no significant differences in overall 5-year survival for patients with early or late disease. Early and late disease patients whose disease responded to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) had significantly improved overall survival compared to nonresponsive disease (P < 0.05). The only negative independent predictors of overall 5-year survival were late stage disease on pretreatment EUS (hazard ratio 2.402, 95 % confidence interval 1.24-4.67, P = 0.01) and late stage disease on final pathological stage (hazard ratio 2.29, 95 % confidence interval 1.22-4.31, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our data lack statistical power but reveal no difference in survival with the addition of neoadjuvant therapies to surgery for early or late resectable EAC. However, patients with disease that responded to NAC had improved outcomes at 5 years for both groups. Therefore, the prognosis for patients undergoing NAC may be optimized by immediate surgical resection if neoadjuvant therapies do not result in a dramatic clinical response.

Techniques of hepatic resection.

Liver resections are high risk procedures performed by experienced surgeons. The role of liver resection in malignant disease has changed over the last 100 years with great improvement in morbidity, mortality and long term survival. New understanding in liver anatomy, improved perioperative care, anesthesia techniques, and technological advances has improved this aspect of patient care. With improved techniques, patients previously considered unresectable have an opportunity to undergo curative surgery. This review article describes the various approaches and techniques for liver resection. The relevant anatomy and terminology of hepatic resections is discussed, as well as the role of anatomic vs. nonanatomic resection. Methods of vascular control are examined and the multiple strategies of parenchymal transection are compared, as well as minimally-invasive techniques. Finally, a brief review of the authors' practice in terms of surgical technique is offered.

Does neoadjuvant chemotherapy improve outcomes for patients with gastric cancer?

BACKGROUND: The role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer remains undefined. We compared the outcomes for patients treated with surgery alone or with the addition of adjuvant or neaodjuvant treatment. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective evaluation of a prospective database of gastric cancer patients treated from 2000 to 2008 was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 173 patients with gastric cancer underwent surgical extirpation. Of the 173 patients, 43% had early-stage disease (less than stage 2) and 57% had late-stage disease (stage 2 or greater; American Joint Committee on Cancer, 2010). The median survival from the date of diagnosis for those treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) (n = 35), adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 21), adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 18), both NAC and adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 11), or surgery alone (n = 88) was 26.3, 17.3, greater than 60, greater than 60, and 50.3 months, respectively. The addition of NAC to surgery was detrimental to survival in those with early-stage disease (P = 0.002) and did not improve survival in those with late-stage disease (P = 0.687). For those with late-stage disease, surgery with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy exhibited the best overall survival compared with surgery alone (P = 0.021) or surgery with adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.01). Patients treated with NAC had a greater rate of R0 resection compared with surgery alone (P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: NAC for patients with gastric cancer does not significantly improve the overall outcomes for those with late-stage disease and could be detrimental to survival for those with early-stage disease. However, treatment with NAC resulted in an improved rate of R0 resection.

Is surgical resection superior to transplantation in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma?

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with either liver resection or transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution analysis of 413 HCC patients from 1999 to 2009. RESULTS: A total of 413 patients with HCC underwent surgical resection (n = 106) and transplantation (n = 270) or were listed without receiving transplantation (n = 37). Excluding transplanted patients with incidental tumors (n = 50), 257 patients with suspected HCC were listed with the intent to transplant (ITT). The median diameter of the largest tumor by radiography was 6.0 cm in resected, 3.0 cm in transplanted, and 3.4 cm in the listed-but-not-transplanted patients. Median time to transplant was 48 days. Recurrence rates were 19.8% for resection and 12.1% for all ITT patients. Overall, patient survival for resection versus ITT patients was similar (5-year survival of 53.0% vs 52.0%, not significant). However, for HCC patients with model end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores less than 10 and who radiologically met Milan or UCSF (University of California, San Francisco) criteria, 1-year and 5-year survival rates were significantly improved in resected patients. For patients with MELD score less than 10 and who met Milan criteria, 1-year and 5-year survival were 92.0% and 63.0% for resection (n = 26) versus 83.0% and 41.0% for ITT (n = 73, P = 0.036). For those with MELD score less than 10 and met UCSF criteria, 1-year and 5-year survival was 94.0% and 62.0% for resection (n = 33) versus 81.0% and 40.0% for ITT (n = 78, P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Among known HCC patients with preserved liver function, resection was associated with superior patient survival versus transplantation. These results suggest that surgical resection should remain the first line therapy for patients with HCC and compensated liver function who are candidates for resection.

Screening criteria for breast cancer.

Breast cancer screening constitutes an integral part of surgical practice for many surgeons and is an important tool in the war against breast cancer. Among many modalities, mammography plays a central role, with MRI now being increasingly used for women with high risk for breast cancer. Current guidelines for screening are in the process of evolution as more scientific knowledge is gained. The challenge lies in developing cost-effective methods to reach the maximum number of the population at risk.