Harms and benefits of mammographic screening for breast cancer in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: In the absence of evidence on the effect of mammographic screening on overall mortality, comparing the number of deaths avoided with the number of deaths caused by screening would be ideal, but the only existing models of this type adopt a very narrow definition of harms. The objective of the present study was to estimate the number of deaths prevented and induced by various mammography screening protocols in Brazil. METHODS: A simulation study of cohorts of Brazilian women screened, considering various age groups and screening interval protocols, was performed based on life tables. The number of deaths avoided and caused by screening was estimated, as was the absolute risk reduction, the number needed to invite for screening-NNS, the net benefit of screening, and the ratio of "lives saved" to "lives lost". Nine possible combinations of balances between benefits and harms were performed for each protocol, in addition to other sensitivity analyses. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The most efficient protocol was biennial screening from 60 to 69 years of age, with almost three times more deaths avoided than biennial screening from 50 to 59 years of age, with a similar number of deaths avoided by biennial screening from 50 to 69 years of age and with the greatest net benefit. Compared with the best scenario of annual screening from 40 to 49 years of age, the NNS of the protocol with biennial screening from 60 to 69 years of age was three-fold lower. Even in its best scenario, the addition of annual screening from 40 to 49 years of age to biennial screening from 50 to 69 years of age results in a decreased net benefit. However, even in the 50-69 year age group, the estimated reduction in breast cancer mortality for Brazil was half that estimated for the United Kingdom.

Management of Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians screen for breast cancer risk factors and assess the risk level of their patients. Women at high risk for breast cancer (eg, 5-year risk of at least 3% or lifetime risk of ≥20%) are eligible for enhanced screening and/or chemoprophylaxis. However, many clinicians do not identify women at high risk and offer appropriate referrals, screening, or chemoprophylaxis. METHODS: We reviewed a sample of 200 charts of women ages 35 to 50 years old with a family history of breast cancer. We identified factors that contribute to their risk for breast cancer and used the Tyrer-Cuzick Risk Assessment Calculator to determine their personal lifetime risk. We then assessed whether these patients received counseling for chemoprophylaxis, referrals, or screening. We also looked for correlations between combinations of risk factors and increased lifetime risk. RESULTS: Out of 200 charts reviewed, 71 women were identified as high risk for breast cancer (lifetime risk of ≥20%). Of those 71 women, just 17 were referred to a high-risk clinic for enhanced screening and/or chemoprophylaxis. Three risk factors, mammographic breast density of category C or D, first degree relatives with breast cancer, and age first given birth if after 30 years old had a significant impact on lifetime risk for breast cancer. DISCUSSION: Primary care clinicians can use these independent risk factors as cues to pursue a more formal calculation of a woman's lifetime risk for breast cancer and make appropriate referrals for enhanced screening and chemoprophylaxis counseling if indicated.

Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening in 75 + Women to Inform Shared Decision-making: a Simulation Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years old. OBJECTIVE: To use microsimulation modeling to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of screening women aged 75, 80, and 85 years based on their individual risk factors (family history, breast density, prior biopsy) and comorbidity level to support SDM in clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We adapted two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models to evaluate the remaining lifetime benefits and harms of screening U.S. women born in 1940, at decision ages 75, 80, and 85 years considering their individual risk factors and comorbidity levels. Results were summarized for average- and higher-risk women (defined as having breast cancer family history, heterogeneously dense breasts, and no prior biopsy, 5% of the population). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Remaining lifetime breast cancers detected, deaths (breast cancer/other causes), false positives, and overdiagnoses for average- and higher-risk women by age and comorbidity level for screening (one or five screens) vs. no screening per 1000 women. RESULTS: Compared to stopping, one additional screen at 75 years old resulted in six and eight more breast cancers detected (10% overdiagnoses), one and two fewer breast cancer deaths, and 52 and 59 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk women without comorbidities, respectively. Five additional screens over 10 years led to 23 and 31 additional breast cancer cases (29-31% overdiagnoses), four and 15 breast cancer deaths avoided, and 238 and 268 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk screened women without comorbidities, respectively. Screening women at older ages (80 and 85 years old) and high comorbidity levels led to fewer breast cancer deaths and a higher percentage of overdiagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation models show that continuing screening in women ≥ 75 years old results in fewer breast cancer deaths but more false positive tests and overdiagnoses. Together, clinicians and 75 + women may use model output to weigh the benefits and harms of continued screening.

Health benefits and harms of mammography screening in older women (75+ years)-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on the balance between potential benefits and harms of mammography screening in women 75 years and older. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the outcomes of mammography screening in women aged 75 years and older. METHODS: A systematic review of mammography screening studies in women aged 75 years and over. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included in this review: 27 observational studies and 9 modelling studies. Many of the included studies used no or uninformative comparison groups resulting in a potential bias towards the benefits of screening. Despite this, there was mixed evidence about the benefits and harms of continuing mammography screening beyond the age of 75 years. Some studies showed a beneficial effect on breast cancer mortality, and other studies showed no effect on mortality. Some studies showed some harms (false positive tests and recalls) being comparable to those in younger age-groups, with other studies showing increase in false positive screens and biopsies in older age-group. Although reported in fewer studies, there was consistent evidence of increased overdiagnosis in older age-groups. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence available to make a recommendation for/against continuing breast screening beyond the age of 75 years. Future studies should use more informative comparisons and should estimate overdiagnosis given potentially substantial harm in this age-group due to competing causes of death. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020203131).

Pregnancy-associated Breast Cancer: Why Breast Imaging During Pregnancy and Lactation Matters.

Pregnancy-associated breast cancer is characterized as breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy, within the first postpartum year, or during lactation. It usually presents as a palpable mass, although the large majority of palpable masses during pregnancy are benign. Breast cancer is the most common invasive malignancy diagnosed during pregnancy and lactation, and its incidence is increasing as more women delay childbearing. Understanding the appropriate methods for screening and diagnostic workup of breast findings in this population is imperative for radiologists to promptly diagnose pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Use of available imaging modalities should be tailored to patient-specific factors, with US typically the first-line modality due to patient age and decreased sensitivity of mammography in the setting of lactational changes. This article illustrates the spectrum of imaging appearances of pregnancy-associated breast cancer, the appropriate diagnostic imaging workup, and the unique challenges encountered in evaluation of this patient population.

Breast Cancer Screening and Prevention.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among U.S. women and its incidence increases with age. Endogenous estrogen exposure, proliferative benign breast disease, breast density, and family history may also indicate increased risk for breast cancer. Early detection with screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, but the net benefits vary by age. Assessing a patient's individual breast cancer risk can guide decisions regarding breast cancer screening. All women benefit from healthy behaviors which may reduce breast cancer risk. Some women at increased risk for breast cancer may benefit from risk-reducing medications. Use of screening measures remains suboptimal, especially for uninsured women.

Factors Associated with Longitudinal Changes in Mammographic Density in a Multiethnic Breast Screening Cohort of Postmenopausal Women.

Background: Breast density is an important risk factor for breast cancer and is known to be associated with characteristics such as age, race, and hormone levels; however, it is unclear what factors contribute to changes in breast density in postmenopausal women over time. Understanding factors associated with density changes may enable a better understanding of breast cancer risk and facilitate potential strategies for prevention. Methods: This study investigated potential associations between personal factors and changes in mammographic density in a cohort of 3,392 postmenopausal women with no personal history of breast cancer between 2011 and 2017. Self-reported information on demographics, breast and reproductive history, and lifestyle factors, including body mass index (BMI), alcohol intake, smoking, and physical activity, was collected by an electronic intake form, and breast imaging reporting and database system (BI-RADS) mammographic density scores were obtained from electronic medical records. Factors associated with a longitudinal increase or decrease in mammographic density were identified using Fisher's exact test and multivariate conditional logistic regression. Results: 7.9% of women exhibited a longitudinal decrease in mammographic density, 6.7% exhibited an increase, and 85.4% exhibited no change. Longitudinal changes in mammographic density were correlated with age, race/ethnicity, and age at menopause in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, Asian women were more likely to exhibit a longitudinal increase in mammographic density and less likely to exhibit a decrease compared to White women. On the other hand, obese women were less likely to exhibit an increase and more likely to exhibit a decrease compared to normal weight women. Women who underwent menopause at age 55 years or older were less likely to exhibit a decrease in mammographic density compared to women who underwent menopause at a younger age. Besides obesity, lifestyle factors (alcohol intake, smoking, and physical activity) were not associated with longitudinal changes in mammographic density. Conclusions: The associations we observed between Asian race/obesity and longitudinal changes in BI-RADS density in postmenopausal women are paradoxical in that breast cancer risk is lower in Asian women and higher in obese women. However, the association between later age at menopause and a decreased likelihood of decreasing in BI-RADS density over time is consistent with later age at menopause being a risk factor for breast cancer and suggests a potential relationship between greater cumulative lifetime estrogen exposure and relative stability in breast density after menopause. Our findings support the complexity of the relationships between breast density, BMI, hormone exposure, and breast cancer risk.

Recommendations on screening mammography in patients with ventriculoperitoneal shunts and deep brain stimulation.

Insertion of ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are common neurosurgical procedures. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of mammography in this patient cohort due to the risk of damaging the VP shunt tubing or DBS implantable pulse generator, and the degradation in mammography image quality secondary to the implanted devices. Based on a review of the current literature, the authors propose that mammography is safe in patients with VP shunts and DBS, and should be performed routinely as a part of population screening.

Estimating Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis After Screening Mammography Among Older Women in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening, particularly for older women. OBJECTIVE: To estimate overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening among older women by age. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing the cumulative incidence of breast cancer among older women who continued screening in the next interval with those who did not. Analyses used competing risk models, stratified by age. SETTING: Fee-for-service Medicare claims, linked to the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program. PATIENTS: Women 70 years and older who had been recently screened. MEASUREMENTS: Breast cancer diagnoses and breast cancer death for up to 15 years of follow-up. RESULTS: This study included 54 635 women. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases (95% CI, 5.7 to 6.4) per 100 screened women versus 4.2 cases (CI, 3.5 to 5.0) per 100 unscreened women. An estimated 31% of breast cancer among screened women were potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 75 to 84 years, cumulative incidence was 4.9 (CI, 4.6 to 5.2) per 100 screened women versus 2.6 (CI, 2.2 to 3.0) per 100 unscreened women, with 47% of cases potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 85 and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 (CI, 2.3 to 3.4) among screened women versus 1.3 (CI, 0.9 to 1.9) among those not, with up to 54% overdiagnosis. We did not see statistically significant reductions in breast cancer-specific death associated with screening. LIMITATIONS: This study was designed to estimate overdiagnosis, limiting our ability to draw conclusions on all benefits and harms of screening. Unmeasured differences in risk for breast cancer and differential competing mortality between screened and unscreened women may confound results. Results were sensitive to model specifications and definition of a screening mammogram. CONCLUSION: Continued breast cancer screening was associated with greater incidence of breast cancer, suggesting overdiagnosis may be common among older women who are diagnosed with breast cancer after screening. Whether harms of overdiagnosis are balanced by benefits and for whom remains an important question. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Variability Among Breast Cancer Risk Classification Models When Applied at the Level of the Individual Woman.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer risk models guide screening and chemoprevention decisions, but the extent and effect of variability among models, particularly at the individual level, is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the accuracy and disagreement between commonly used risk models in categorizing individual women as average vs. high risk for developing invasive breast cancer. DESIGN: Comparison of three risk prediction models: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model, and International Breast Intervention Study (IBIS) model. SUBJECTS: Women 40 to 74 years of age presenting for screening mammography at a multisite health system between 2011 and 2015, with 5-year follow-up for cancer outcome. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of model discrimination and calibration at the population level and inter-model agreement for 5-year breast cancer risk at the individual level using two cutoffs (≥ 1.67% and ≥ 3.0%). KEY RESULTS: A total of 31,115 women were included. When using the ≥ 1.67% threshold, more than 21% of women were classified as high risk for developing breast cancer in the next 5 years by one model, but average risk by another model. When using the ≥ 3.0% threshold, more than 5% of women had disagreements in risk severity between models. Almost half of the women (46.6%) were classified as high risk by at least one of the three models (e.g., if all three models were applied) for the threshold of ≥ 1.67%, and 11.1% were classified as high risk for ≥ 3.0%. All three models had similar accuracy at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk estimates for individual women vary substantially, depending on which risk assessment model is used. The choice of cutoff used to define high risk can lead to adverse effects for screening, preventive care, and quality of life for misidentified individuals. Clinicians need to be aware of the high false-positive and false-negative rates and variation between models when talking with patients.

Prevalence of Modifiable Breast Cancer Risk Factors and Potential Opportunities for Primary Prevention Among Women Engaged in Screening Mammography: National Health Interview Survey Results.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of modifiable breast cancer risk factors among women engaged in screening mammography using nationally representative cross-sectional survey data and to inform potential opportunities for breast facilities to contribute to primary prevention. METHODS: 2018 National Health Interview Survey respondents who were women ages 40-74 years without history of breast cancer were included and then categorized based on whether they reported screening mammography within the prior two years. Proportions of these women reporting evidence-based modifiable breast cancer risk factors, including elevated body mass index (BMI), lack of physical activity, or moderate or heavy alcohol consumption were calculated and stratified by demographics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between these risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 4989 women meeting inclusion criteria and reporting screening mammography, 79% reported at least one modifiable risk factor. Elevated BMI was the most reported risk factor (67%), followed by lack of physical activity (24%) and alcohol consumption (16%). The majority of each race/ethnicity category reported at least one modifiable risk factor, with the highest proportion reported by Black respondents (90%). Asian, college educated, and higher-income participants were less likely to have at least one modifiable risk factor. CONCLUSION: Modifiable breast cancer risk factors are prevalent among women engaged in screening mammography. This provides potential opportunities for breast imaging facilities to contribute to the primary prevention of breast cancer by providing resources for lifestyle modification at the time of screening mammography.

[Christmas article: Goose breast caused by unusual circumstances].

This case report investigate a 61-year-old healthy man who, during a Christmas goose-shooting, got repeated punches on the right breast region, owing to a defective shotgun stock. The initial suggilations and haematomas disappeared in three weeks, but after three months a tender enlargement of the periareolar area developed. Mammography and sonography showed typical right gynaecomastia. History, andrologial examination and biochemistry disclosed no explanation. It was concluded that a traumatic aetiology of the gynaecomastia was most likely. During the next year, the clinical signs regressed somewhat, but control sonography showed leftovers of ductal tissue, and the bird shooter has become reconciled with his "goose breast".

Patient, primary care provider, and stakeholder perspectives on mammography screening frequency: lessons learned from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: U.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). PARTICIPANTS: Patients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates). MAIN MEASURES: Qualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

Global guidelines for breast cancer screening: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little information is known about how many countries have issued breast cancer screening guidelines and the differences among existing guidelines. We systematically reviewed current guidelines and summarized corresponding recommendations, to provide references for good clinical practice in different countries. METHODS: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to March 27th, 2021 were conducted and supplemented by reviewing the guideline development organizations. The quality of screening guidelines was assessed from six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) instrument by two appraisers. The basic information and recommendations of the issued guidelines were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 23 guidelines issued between 2010 and 2021 in 11 countries or regions were identified for further review. The content and quality varied across the guidelines. The average AGREE Ⅱ scores of the guidelines ranged from 33.3% to 87.5%. The highest domain score was "clarity of presentation" while the domain with the lowest score was "applicability". For average-risk women, most of the guidelines recommended mammographic screening for those aged 40-74 years, specifically, those aged 50-69 years were regarded as the optimal age group for screening. Nine of 23 guidelines recommended against an upper age limit for breast cancer screening. Mammography (MAM) was recommended as the primary screening modality for average-risk women by all included guidelines. Most guidelines suggested annual or biennial mammographic screening. Risk factors of breast cancer identified in the guidelines mainly fell within five categories which could be broadly summarized as the personal history of pre-cancerous lesions and/or breast cancer; the family history of breast cancer; the known genetic predisposition of breast cancer; the history of mantle or chest radiation therapy; and dense breasts. For women at higher risk, there was a consensus among most guidelines that annual MAM or annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be given, and the screening should begin earlier than the average-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of 23 included international guidelines were issued by developed countries which contained roughly the same but not identical recommendations on breast cancer screening age, methods, and intervals. Most guidelines recommended annual or biennial mammographic screening between 40 and 74 years for average-risk populations and annual MAM or annual MRI starting from a younger age for high-risk populations. Current guidelines varied in quality and increased efforts are needed to improve the methodological quality of guidance documents. Due to lacking clinical practice guidelines tailored to different economic levels, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) should apply and implement the evidence-based guidelines with higher AGREE Ⅱ scores considering local adaption.

Mean glandular dose in the mammary gland and dose of radiation in the thyroid gland and lens in women with and without breast implants during different modalities of mammography.

There have always been concerns about the secondary effects of diagnostic methods that use ionizing radiation. During mammography, the parameters to be concerned about are the mean glandular dose and the scatter dose. We evaluated the dose of radiation to the breast, thyroid gland, and lens in digital mammography in women with and without implants, in tomosynthesis in women with and without implants, and in contrast-enhanced mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 212 women with and without disease who were attended at the Centro Clínico de Estereotaxia, CECLINES, in Caracas, Venezuela, between June 2017 and August 2017; the women were classified into five groups according to the mammographic modality used to evaluate them and whether or not they had implants. The statistical analysis included descriptive statistics for the study population. We used the Mann-Whitney U to compare the mean glandular dose and dose in the thyroid gland and lens between groups. RESULTS: The mean glandular dose and the dose of radiation received in the thyroid and lens were within the acceptable range. In a few exceptions, the mean glandular dose per view was slightly higher than 3 mGy. The scatter dose to the thyroid gland and the lens during mammography has a very small contribution to the annual dose equivalent. CONCLUSION: The mean glandular dose and the scatter dose to the thyroid gland and lens delivered during tomosynthesis and 2D mammography in women with implants were higher than those delivered during other mammographic techniques in women without implants.

Development of a model for predicting risk from breast interval cancer in the female population in the Republic of Croatia.

There are several risk prediction models for screen-detected breast cancer but to the best of our knowledge, none for predicting risk from the interval cancer in breast cancer screening. The challenge for developing such a model was that the risk factors for both cancers appear to be similar, but the effects of interval cancer on women's health are more severe due to its higher biological aggressiveness. Our model is based on risk factors identified in the female population in the Republic of Croatia. Anonymized data from 472,395 women who participated in the National Program for Early Detection of Breast Cancer during the first three cycles of the program (October 2006-May 2014) were used. Cancer data from the Breast Cancer Screening Registry were linked by the data linkage method with data from the Cancer Registry of the Republic of Croatia. A total of 789 women with interval cancer and 3,530 women with screen-detected cancer were identified. Multivariate logistic regression in R was used to model the difference between participants with screen-detected cancer and those with interval cancer, using the general linear model (glm) function. The variables used for the analysis were selected using the all subset regression analysis method. The criterion of the least complexity parameter, the Cp-Mallows index, was chosen. Three variables were found to be statistically significant in the model: breast tissue density (p=0.038), hormone replacement therapy (p=0.034), and a first-degree family history of breast cancer (p<0.001). The resulting model has a discriminant accuracy of 0.658 (95% CI 0.602-0.713). Although our model has poorer predictor reliability, its advantage is that it is based on real-world data and that the criteria for interval cancer were strictly followed. It is best suited for use in the Croatian population of women because we have identified the available risk factors for the development of interval cancer in our population, but with knowledge of a specific epidemiological environment, it can be more widely applied. The model can be used to make recommendations for individual screening participants. The variables of breast tissue density and first-degree family history of breast cancer increase the likelihood of interval cancer and indicate an increased risk of detecting interval cancer between mammograms. Consequently, individualized risk screening should be considered (modification of screening interval or additional screening by magnetic resonance or ultrasound). According to the model, hormone replacement therapy is positively related to screen-detected cancer, and participants who use hormone replacement therapy must be medically monitored due to the increased risk of screen-detected cancer. In addition, participants in the screening program who use hormone replacement therapy and have a higher density of breast tissue should be encouraged to have more frequent mammograms.

A review of screening mammography: The benefits and radiation risks put into perspective.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: In medical imaging a benefit to risk analysis is required when justifying or implementing diagnostic procedures. Screening mammography is no exception and in particular concerns around the use of radiation to help diagnose cancer must be addressed. METHODS: The Medline database and various established reports on breast screening and radiological protection were utilised to explore this review. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: The benefit of screening is well argued; the ability to detect and treat breast cancer has led to a 91% 5-year survival rate and 497 deaths prevented from breast cancer amongst 100,000 screened women. Subsequently, screening guidelines by various countries recommend annual, biennial or triennial screening from ages somewhere between 40-74 years. Whilst the literature presents different perspectives on screening younger and older women, the current evidence of benefit for screening women <40 and ≥75 years is currently not strong. The radiation dose and associated risk delivered to each woman for a single examination is dependent upon age, breast density and breast thickness, however the average mean glandular dose is around 2.5-3 mGy, and this would result in 65 induced cancers and 8 deaths per 100,000 women over a screening lifetime from 40-74 years. This results in a ratio of lives saved to deaths from induced cancer of 62:1. CONCLUSION: Therefore, compared to the potential mortality reduction achievable with screening mammography, the risk is small.

Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

BACKGROUND: Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. CONCLUSIONS: In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Management Strategies for Patients Presenting With Symptomatic Lymphadenopathy and Breast Edema After Recent COVID-19 Vaccination.

Ipsilateral axillary lymphadenopathy is a well-documented finding associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Varying guidelines have been published for the management of asymptomatic patients who have a history of recent vaccination and present with incidental lymphadenopathy at screening mammography. Some experts recommend follow-up imaging, and others suggest that clinical management, rather than repeat imaging or biopsy, is appropriate. Symptomatic patients with lymphadenopathy and/or additional abnormal imaging findings should be treated differently depending on risk factors and clinical scenarios. Although ipsilateral lymphadenopathy is well documented, ipsilateral breast edema after COVID-19 vaccination has been rarely reported. The combination of ipsilateral lymphadenopathy and diffuse breast edema after COVID-19 vaccination presents a clinical management challenge because edema can obscure underlying abnormalities at imaging. For symptomatic patients with lymphadenopathy and associated breast parenchymal abnormality, prompt action is appropriate, including diagnostic evaluation and consideration of tissue sampling. This approach may prevent delays in diagnosis and treatment of patients with malignancy masked by symptoms from the vaccination.

Posterior ischaemic opticus neuropathy after radical cystectomy.

In this case report, a 58-year-old male with comorbidities of BMI 41 kg/m2, hypertension and diabetes type 2 underwent radical cystectomy. The operation was performed in 30-degree Trendelenburg and lasted > 7 hours with a total blood loss of 850 ml. The patient presented with painless bilateral vision loss upon awakening. MRI, CT and CT angiography of the cerebrum was performed and revealed arteriosclerosis and hypophysis adenoma. Neurological and ophthalmic consults were performed. Three weeks post-operatively, bilateral papillary atrophy was present, and posterior ischaemic optic neuropathy was confirmed.