Share This Article:

Is Repetition of the Contralateral Mammogram of Patients Referred for Unilateral Findings from the Dutch Breast Cancer Screening Necessary?

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:1036KB) PP. 141-148
DOI: 10.4236/abcr.2013.24023    3,497 Downloads   5,795 Views  

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the benefit of contralateral mammogram repetition in patients referred from the Dutch breast cancer screening program for unilateral findings. Material and Methods: 395 patients were referred from screening to our institution for unilateral findings between October 2009 and August 2011. In all patients a bilateral mammogram was repeated and analyzed by experienced breast radiologists. Anonymised data concerning the date of registration of the screening mammogram, the referred side (left/right or bilateral), age, screening’s BI-RADS classification, breast density, biopsy results and follow-up were collected. Results: Of the 395 patients referred for a suspicious unilateral finding, a malignancy on the referred breast was confirmed in 144 patients. In addition, a malignancy in the contralateral breast was diagnosed in six patients (1.5%). One of these six contralateral malignancies was occult on screening mammogram, but depicted on institutional mammogram only. The remaining five cases were detected in a blinded retrospective analysis by an experienced radiologist and were considered overlooked by the screening radiologists. During follow-up (mean 27.8 months), no contralateral malignancies were detected. Conclusion: Repetition of the two-view mammogram of the contralateral side in patients referred with a unilateral suspicious finding seems unnecessary.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Castro, C. , Schipper, R. , Roozendaal, L. , Goethem, M. , Lobbes, M. and Smidt, M. (2013) Is Repetition of the Contralateral Mammogram of Patients Referred for Unilateral Findings from the Dutch Breast Cancer Screening Necessary?. Advances in Breast Cancer Research, 2, 141-148. doi: 10.4236/abcr.2013.24023.

References

[1] G. A. Miltenburg, P. H. Peeters, J. Fracheboud and H. J. Collette, “Seventeen-Year Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening: The DOM Project, The Netherlands. Diagnostisch Onderzoek (Investigation) Mammacarcinoom,” British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 78, No. 7, 1998, pp. 962-965.
[2] M. E. Keemers-Gels, R. P. Groenendijk, J. H. van den Heuvel, C. Boetes, P. G. Peer and T. H. Wobbes, “Pain Experienced by Women Attending Breast Cancer Screening,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 60, No. 3, 2000, pp. 235-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006457520996
[3] J. Nederend, L. E. Duijm, M. W. Louwman, J. H. Groenewoud, A. B. Donkers-van Rossum and A. C. Voogd, “Impact of Transition from Analog Screening Mammography to Digital Screening Mammography on Screening Outcome in The Netherlands: A Population-Based Study,” Annals of Oncology, Vol. 23, No. 12, 2012, pp. 3098-3103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds146
[4] R. E. Hendrick, “Radiation Doses and Cancer Risks from Breast Imaging Studies,” Radiology, Vol. 257, No. 1, 2010, pp. 246-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100570
[5] D. Vanel, “The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): A Step towards a Universal Radiological Language?” European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 61, No. 2, 2007, p. 183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.030
[6] A. M. Bluekens, R. Holland, N. Karssemeijer, M. J. Broeders and G. J. den Heeten, “Comparison of Digital Screening Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the Early Detection of Clinically Relevant Cancers: A Multicenter Study,” Radiology, Vol. 265, No. 3, 2012, pp. 707-714. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1148/radiol.12111461
[7] NABON, “Guideline Mamma Carcinoma 2012,” NABON, The Netherlands, 2012. http://www.oncoline.nl/ mammacarcinoom
[8] E. A. Kheirelseid, H. Jumustafa, N. Miller, C. Curran, K. Sweeney, C. Malone, et al., “Bilateral Breast Cancer: Analysis of Incidence, Outcome, Survival and Disease Characteristics,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 126, No. 1, 2011, pp. 131-140.
[9] D. E. Heron, L. T. Komarnicky, T. Hyslop, G. F. Schwartz and C. M. Mansfield, “Bilateral Breast Carcinoma: Risk Factors and Outcomes for Patients with Synchronous and Metachronous Disease,” Cancer, Vol. 88, No. 12, 2000, pp. 2739-2750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20000615)88:12<2739::AID-CNCR12>3.0.CO;2-J
[10] C. J. Ashman, J. S. Yu and D. Wolfman, “Satisfaction of Search in Osteoradiology,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 175, No. 2, 2000, pp. 541-544. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.2.1750541
[11] J. H. Groenewoud, J. D. Otten, J. Fracheboud, G. Draisma, B. M. van Ineveld, R. Holland, et al., “Cost-Effectiveness of Different Reading and Referral Strategies in Mammography Screening in the Netherlands,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 102, No. 2, 2007, pp. 211-218.
[12] Academies NRCotN, “Health Risk from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2— Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,” National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2006.
[13] J. G. Elmore, C. Y. Nakano, T. D. Koepsell, L. M. Desnick, C. J. D’Orsi and D. F. Ransohoff, “International Variation in Screening Mammography Interpretations in Community-Based Programs,” Journal of National Cancer Institute, Vol. 95, No. 18, 2003, pp. 1384-1393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djg048

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.