By agreement with the publisher, this book is accessible by the search feature, but cannot be browsed.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, et al., editors. Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. 6th edition. Hamilton (ON): BC Decker; 2003.
Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. 6th edition.
Show detailsHistorically, the primary presenting symptom of breast cancer was a palpable mass, often first detected by the patient. Today, the increasing use of mammography, especially in screening programs, results in many cancers being found at a preclinical stage. A simple discussion of the signs and symptoms of breast cancer without consideration of these preclinical manifestations would be incomplete. To some extent, this means greater complexity in selecting for biopsy patients who are suspected of having carcinoma. The clinical and mammographic signs and symptoms are best understood against the background knowledge of the anatomy and biology of breast cancer—how it grows and extends locally.
Patient History
The patient's history should include standard epidemiologic and reproductive information to assess the relative risk factors. Information about lumps, pain, or any changes in the breast should be obtained and correlated with physical findings. Although pain is probably the most frequent breast complaint that brings a patient to a physician's office, it is uncommonly the presenting factor in cancer. Breast cancer, especially in its early stages, is usually painless. Most breast pain is related to hormone stimulation and swelling of breast tissue (although these symptoms may draw attention to a mass that proves to be cancer). Careful questioning of the patient usually reveals that the pain is cyclic, beginning any time between ovulation and the onset of menstruation, and that commonly it is most intense a few days before menstruation. Pain usually disappears by the first or second day of the menstrual period, only to return again at the next cycle. Frequently, patients complain of radiation toward the shoulder and arm; and a burning sensation that goes with constantly increased muscle tone can be attributed to subconscious muscle tension in this region. Cyclic pain is present at a mild level in more than 50% of women of childbearing age. Less frequently, the pain can reach intense proportions. Some patients report that, during the worst days, it is too painful even to take a shower.
The most effective treatment is explanation and reassurance, although some patients who are extremely symptomatic and incapacitated by the pain may require treatments with hormones or hormone-blocking drugs. There are occasional reports that caffeine limitation or low-fat diets help, but relief seems to be individual, and these reports are not supported by persuasive clinical trials.1–3
A patient who reports a lump or any other physical change in her breast needs careful attention. The history should describe any change in the character or size of the lump and whether or not it has been tender. Pain should be described with respect to its timing in the menstrual cycle. Lumpy changes associated with a fibrocystic process may wax and wane, but it is distinctly unusual for a carcinoma to do anything but increase in size. If there is confusion, the patient should be reexamined after the menstrual period.
Other descriptive changes, such as skin thickening or discoloration, the presence of axillary masses, or nipple discharge, should be elicited. Nipple discharge may be serous, watery, or milk-like. It may be clear or have a yellow or greenish hue, or it may be serosanguineous or frankly bloody. Although the latter may indicate a neoplasm, this is most commonly an intraductal papilloma, which is benign. It is possible, but rare, for such a discharge to signal an intraductal papillary carcinoma; all bloody discharges require further investigation.
Clear or serous discharge, especially if it involves more than one major duct opening on a nipple, is likely to be benign. Non-bloody discharge that is not spontaneous but requires manual compression to elicit is also likely to be benign. In an apocrine system such as the breast, there is always some cell desquamation and liquefaction and, therefore, some fluid present in the duct system. If this is not well absorbed, it can make its way through the collecting ducts to the nipple and present as a discharge. Similarly, if the duct is blocked by fibrosis or inspissated material, the pressure of secretion can cause dilation and cyst formation. Cytologic examination of the discharge has poor accuracy and is not very useful.
Physical Examination
The patient should be examined, first in a sitting, then in a supine position. When the patient is sitting erect, more useful information is obtained visually than by palpation. When the arms are raised and stretched upward, the contour of the skin is pulled tight, allowing for easier detection of contour abnormalities in the upper half of the breast. This position also emphasizes dimpling, especially in the lower half of the breast. Because much of the breast tissue coalesces in the sitting position, it is very difficult when palpating to appreciate true masses and often easy to be confused by confluent tissue.
With the patient supine and the arm raised so that the hand is behind the head and the elbow lies flat on the pillow, the breast tissue can be spread across the chest wall, allowing for proper palpation. The patient should be slightly turned to the contralateral side to aid this process. In all but very large breasts, the tissue is now spread out across the ribs, so that there is very little tissue thickness between the examining fingers and the underlying ribs. This provides confidence that, if there is a detectable mass in this area, it will not be missed (Figure 121-16). It is important to proceed in a pattern, but whether it be by quadrants or strips is up to the examiner. The axilla is palpated by relaxing and adducting the patient's arm, but this is best done with the patient in the sitting position. Skin changes, such as dimpling, peau d'orange (edema), erythema, or areas of fixation and ulceration, suggest advanced cancer that has invaded the skin or the immediate subcutaneous tissue. Skin retraction is often more easily detected when the patient is sitting and the arms are raised or when the patient is leaning forward. The breast lobules are divided loosely into fascial compartments by Cooper's ligaments, somewhat like the divisions of a grapefruit but much less geometric. Since the fibroblastic reactions associated with cancer tend to involve and pull on these ligaments, they become shortened, and the effects can be seen on the skin with such positioning. Retraction or asymmetry of the nipple is another worrisome sign unless the patient reports that this has been present all her life. A subtle reddish thickening of the nipple may suggest Paget disease.
The examination is concluded with a search for axillary, infraclavicular, and supraclavicular nodes and palpation of the liver to detect enlargement. Although palpably enlarged axillary nodes raise the probability of metastases, careful studies have shown that clinical judgment is highly inaccurate. In a study conducted by the NSABP, a group of cancer patients were judged by their clinicians to have normal axillary nodes, but 38% showed histologic evidence of metastatic tumor when the specimens were examined pathologically.4 Conversely, in 25% of such cases, nodes that appeared enlarged and were judged to contain cancer were found to be normal.
The most difficult clinical decision is differentiating between a pathologic mass and a physiologic density associated with fibroglandular (or fibrocystic) changes. Many women have the latter condition, which is characterized by a rubbery density without clear margins. The process seems to blend into the surrounding breast tissue. A true lump has definite margins. Whether these are smooth, as in a gross cyst or fibroadenoma, or somewhat irregular, as in carcinoma, they delineate a discrete or dominant mass that requires further investigation. The differentiation of true masses from fibrocystic plaques is difficult to teach and is learned only with experience.
It is important to measure the size of a tumor with a caliper so that subsequent examinations can more accurately establish any change in size. Mobile lesions are usually considered benign, but this is another area of clinical uncertainty. Advanced cancers may be fixed, but early palpable lesions will certainly be mobile with respect to skin or fascia and muscle of the chest wall. There is, however, a subtle difference in mobility (better called “movability”) characteristic of cysts or fibroadenomas, which have capsules and move much more easily within the surrounding breast tissue. Carcinoma, on the other hand, which has no capsule and is surrounded by an infiltrating desmoplastic process, tends to move with the neighboring breast tissue rather than within it, because the process “locks” it into the stroma and surrounding glandular tissues, even when it is not fixed to surrounding structures, such as skin or muscle. Even the most experienced examiner can sometimes fail to distinguish correctly between benign and malignant lesions.
Screening
The refinement of x-ray methods to image the breast and the important clinical-pathologic correlations are best attributed to Gershon-Cohen in the 1940s and 1950s in Philadelphia. The use of screening mammograms in a prospective clinical trial aimed at reducing mortality by discovering preclinical breast cancers in asymptomatic women was first successfully reported by the Health Insurance Plan (HIP) study in 1975.5 In the trial, 31,000 women enrolled in a prepaid insurance plan were invited for screening and compared with a second group of 31,000 women in the plan who served as controls. Long-term follow-up has demonstrated a 30% reduction in mortality in favor of the screened group. The HIP study, the first of its kind, was designed to answer questions about screening among women ages 40 to 64 and does not allow for a direct answer to questions of age subsets. The study achieved its target accrual and reported that there was an overall mortality reduction from screening. The problem arises when the 40- to 49-year-old group is examined separately. This small slice of the original population was not large enough to detect a change in mortality, and the original analysis showed identical mortality for screened and control patients ages 40 to 49 at entry.6 Subsequently, a difference was detected for this age group, but only after 8 years of follow-up, in contrast to older women, where the difference became apparent within 4 years. Many of the women who were first screened at 40 to 49 years of age were older than 50 when their cancers were detected, a factor that raised confusion about how to interpret the results.
In analyzing screening studies, strict methodology must be observed in order to avoid bias. If tumors are found earlier by mammography than by clinical examination, the additional time gained is referred to as lead-time. If, however, the tumor has already metastasized out of the breast, the date of death will not be changed, but the length of survival from the time of diagnosis to death will be increased. This is called lead-time bias. Length bias is another, more subtle form of error that plagues this type of study. It is more likely that patients with slowly growing tumors will have their tumors detected on routine screening, whereas patients with more rapidly growing lesions (interval cancers) will be diagnosed at other times. Thus, the screened group will include more people with slower growing (more favorable biologic) tumors, and, by comparison, this group will seem to perform better.
The way to avoid these biases is simply to count the number of deaths from breast cancer in both groups. Studies that report survival rates or average survival times should be viewed with skepticism. Similarly, studies that report that screened cases had smaller tumors or earlier stages of cancer can be misleading because they may represent only lead-time biases. The use of unorthodox or unplanned-for methods of analysis can similarly lead to erroneous conclusions. The confusion surrounding age and screening benefit is a long way from becoming clear.
Early studies from Sweden and the Netherlands also demonstrated a reduced mortality for screened women who are postmenopausal.7, 8 None of these early studies was designed specifically to measure the impact of screening in women under the age of 50. Statistical manipulations to analyze subsets separately in these studies can sometimes show a benefit for the younger age group, but caution is required in relying on these in making final recommendations. The application of widespread screening in a group of patients where it is not useful would waste time and money and inhibit the broader application of screening in the older age group, where it is of proven benefit. The early days of the screening debate were not concerned with cost-effectiveness analyses, but the present concern with allocation of health care dollars throughout North America now makes this an important consideration. The literature on this subject can be somewhat arcane, but certain trends are emerging. Kattlove and colleagues have shown that the mortality reduction from screening is expensive, even for older women.9 More recently, Salzmann and associates have calculated that the cost effectiveness in screening women younger than 50 is five times more expensive than that in older women.10
To be effective, a screening program should seek a disease that is common, one whose effects are serious, and one for which a useful treatment is available. The incidence of breast cancer increases with each decade of life, but it is significantly more common in postmenopausal women so that in women under 49, more negative examinations will result and fewer cancers will be found (Table 121-3). Breast cancer is three times more likely in 55-year-old women than in 45-year-olds, and the difference is more conspicuous for wider age spreads. Furthermore, in the younger group, the breast is more glandular and, therefore, more radio-dense, raising the chance that faint signs of carcinoma will be obscured by the overlying normal tissue.
On the other hand, modern mammography equipment with high-speed film, microfocus x-ray tubes, high-speed film screen cassettes, and good selective compression techniques make the procedure more effective than it was a decade ago and increase the possibility that small carcinomas can be found in this age group. More recently, larger clinical trials have attempted to answer this question. The incidence and mortality rates of breast cancer vary by ethnicity (see Table 121-4). Many clinical features influence risk of developing breast cancer (see Table 121-5).
Canadian Trial
A large prospective study from Canada, the only trial designed to address the question of screening in women ages 40 to 49, found no benefit.11, 12 Despite widespread agreement that screening postmenopausal women reduces breast cancer mortality, it is not clear how much mammography, clinical examination, or the combination contributes to the outcome. The National Breast Cancer Screening Study (NBSS) of the NCI of Canada was designed to address the question of screening the group ages 40 to 49 and, second, to evaluate the separate effects of mammography and clinical examination in women ages 50 and older. A total of 50,430 women aged 40 to 49 years were randomly assigned to either annual mammography and physical examination or “usual care” after an initial physical examination. The screening techniques detected considerably more node-negative and small tumors than did “usual care” but had no impact on the rate of death from breast cancer up to 7 years following entry.11
In the group of women ages 50 and older, 39,405 participants were randomized to undergo annual mammography and physical examination or annual physical examination only. As in the first group, mammography detected more node-negative and small tumors than did screening by physical examination alone but had no impact on the rate of death from breast cancer up to 7 years' follow-up from entry.12 This trial was meant to be the definitive study addressing two of the main points of controversy arising from the last 20 years of screening. However, these reports have been received with considerable debate and criticism. Critics contend that the quality of mammography was substandard, the follow-up time was too short, the power was insufficient, and there may have been randomization problems since, among 40- to 49-year-old women, there was a disproportionate number with lymph node metastases in the mammography group.
Defenders of the NBSS insist that the results are consistent with other studies. It is true that the power was low, mainly because the calculations were based on a higher expected death rate, but the authors point out the often-observed statistical maxim that if larger power is required, it must mean that the effect is smaller. A second report with longer follow-up has confirmed the original findings.13
The quality of mammography in this program did improve as the trial progressed, and a quality-control plan was implemented. The main argument is now over whether the defects were frequent enough or important enough to affect the outcome of the trial.14, 15 The authors provide evidence that the sensitivity of mammography in the NBSS compares favorably with that from the Stockholm and the Swedish Two-County trials.14
Swedish Overview
It is clear that the debate has not been settled by the Canadian study. A reanalysis of five randomized controlled trials carried out between 1976 and 1990 in Sweden provides further insight. The Swedish studies are often individually cited in various contexts and furnish conflicting information. An overview was accomplished by merging the data from the five trials. An independent death review committee, blinded to the individual allocation, ascertained the causes of deaths. For the total aggregate of screened women, the RRs of dying of breast cancer as compared to the control group was 0.76 (95% CI 0.66–0.87). When analyzed for the age group 40 to 49, there was a nonsignificant reduction in risk of 13% (95% CI 0.63–1.20).15 The patterns follow those first noted for the HIP study in that among women older than 50, the screened group diverged from the control group after 4 or 5 years, but differences did not appear in the younger group until after 8 years from entry.
The NBSS has found no benefit at 7 years in screening younger women. The Swedish overview, which excluded the NBSS results, found a statistically insignificant benefit; Elwood and colleagues, who included the NBSS in their meta-analysis, found no benefit, nor did the NIH workshop. The Nijmegin update and the meta-analysis of Kerlikowske and colleagues both support those conclusions.7, 16–18 However, some recent reports indicate a more meaningful benefit for the younger age group.
Gothenburg Trial
In 1997, the Gothenburg trial reported a significant benefit for screening women aged 39 to 49 years of age at randomization.19 At the same time, an update from the Malmo study showed a benefit for women older than 45 years.20 More recently, a long-term follow-up of the Edinburgh trial was reported.21 At 14 years of follow-up, screening women biennially showed a benefit for women aged 45 to 49. The UK trial of early detection, a nonrandomized comparison of communities that did or did not offer screening, also shows a decrease in breast cancer mortality in the 45- to 46-year age group.22 These trials still do not resolve the controversy. It is not clear how much of the mortality reduction in young women was due to screening after they had reached the age of 50 years.
Conclusions
Part of the controversy arises from the manner of presenting the data. It is probably correct that even in younger women, screening reduces mortality somewhat, and that with more modern equipment and techniques, the figures may be improving. Accepting the best data, there is a 45% reduction in mortality. This seems impressive, but breast cancer mortality in this age group is only 30 per 100,000. Salzmann and colleagues estimated that screening 10,000 women annually for 10 years would extend their collective lives by 2.5 days.10 Harris has calculated that a primary care doctor who sends 1,000 40-year-old women for mammograms each year will save one life after 16 years.23 The point is that screening will result in benefit for individual women, but it is not clear that as a public health program this would be worthwhile. The issues go beyond cost effectiveness. Screening will find many abnormalities. Many biopsies will result, and some people will be treated, possibly by mastectomy, for very slow-growing variants of DCIS, which may not ever have had clinical importance for that person. Nevertheless, some women will benefit, and some lives will be saved. Final decisions on this topic will be made on the basis of value judgments; it is unlikely that there will ever be a scientific consensus.
Dichotomizing at age 50 may be somewhat arbitrary, even though it does correspond roughly to age at menopause, when cancer rates increase and changes in breast glandularity make mammography more effective in discovering small changes. It is important to realize, however, that women aged 49 may be very much like women age 50 or 51, and not like women of 39 or 40. It is highly likely that there is no steep and abrupt change in the usefulness of mammography at an arbitrary cutoff point, such as the age of 50. So why the dispute?
To take one extreme, there is no argument that screening mammography is not a useful public health tool among 20-year-old women, for the obvious reason that they very rarely get breast cancer. Thus, a combination of increasing incidence, possible changes in the biology of breast cancer, and the sensitivity of mammography all come together somewhere between 40 and 50. We can reasonably conceive of a gradient of uncertain steepness reflecting the increasing usefulness of mammography as the age of 50 is approached.
A logical view suggests that there are individual women, especially those closer to 50 than to 40, who will benefit from screening. When examined from a public policy viewpoint, however, it will be necessary to evaluate screening programs against other yardsticks of public health and their costs. This type of approach is in its infancy, but we can expect its impact to grow more apparent and important in the future.
Guidelines for screening, which are published by the American Cancer Society (ACS), the NCI, the American College of Radiologists (ACR), and other interested organizations, were, for many years, quite similar. During the past decade, there has been considerable controversy about screening women younger than 50. An NIH Consensus Conference,was held in 1993.383 The panel found a lack of evidence to support screening in women younger than 50 and recommended individual counseling and decision making. The workshop participants confirmed the protective effect of screening in the 50- to 65-year-old group. Subgroup analysis of women younger than 50 showed either a lack of benefit or a marginal benefit that was of no statistical significance. The NCI advisors felt that there was not enough scientifically dependable information to support any guideline for women younger than 50 and decided to make that information available in the hope that it would help individual women make up their minds. The NCI at first revised its guidelines to make no specific recommendation in this age group. Subsequently, however, the National Cancer Advisory Board took an opposite stance, and the NCI eventually recommended screening younger women, especially in certain situations, such as high-risk families. The ACS and the ACR decided not to change their guidelines and still recommend mammography to screen younger women.
A review of all of the evidence indicates a probable benefit for screening young women, but the extent of the benefit as a public health measure is still controversial. Decisions are probably best made on an individual basis, taking into consideration family history, body build, and previous personal history. Women closer to 50 than to 40 years of age may be more reasonable candidates for screening mammography. Women with a higher risk because of family history may sensibly be counseled to begin mammography as young as age 40.
The Cochrane Review
For the past decade, while the debate has focused on the under 50 age group, there has been widespread agreement that screening reduced mortality in the over 50 age group. This apparent stability has now been upset. The debate has recently expanded following the publication of a Cochrane review suggesting that mammography at any age does not reduce mortality and may do harm because it increases the likelihood of mastectomy for conditions that may not need it.24 In this review, Olson and Goetsche performed a meta-analysis on the major mammographic studies from the 1980s and 1990s. They contended that many of the studies were flawed because of randomization problems and irregularities in ascertaining specific causes of death. On these grounds, they rejected all but two of the studies, the Canadian study and the Malmo long-term study, both of which were labeled as acceptable but weak. Citing only these two studies, they concluded that mammography did not reduce mortality in any age group. The resulting debate illustrates some of the difficulties inherent in doing screening studies. Many decisions are made in the protocol design process that can cause controversy later on. Particular problems are methods of ascertainment of cause of death, the decision to use either all mortality or disease-specific mortality, and randomization techniques. In addition, the meta-analysis process is difficult because of very different methodologies in the various studies. The meta-analysis itself requires decisions that can introduce bias. Foremost among these is the decision to exclude some studies, which the review authors have done.
Conclusions
Unfortunately the debate is not over. The Cochrane review has not been widely accepted. From a pragmatic viewpoint, one could argue that the large number of trials that do show a benefit cannot be dismissed even if they are flawed by slightly uneven randomization or uncertainties about ascertainment of cause of death. Furthermore, the very clear decline in breast cancer mortality seen in all Western countries over the last 10 to 15 years cannot easily be explained without considering mammography as beneficial. While adjuvant chemotherapy is obviously important, it is not clear that mammography is not contributing to this decline.
On the other hand, it is clear that the benefits of mammography are not likely to be much greater than they have been shown to date. There are some patients who would have been cured even without screening, and there is a group of patients who will not be cured even with screening because they have aggressive tumors that metastasize before they can be discovered. It is the middle group whose tumors are potentially dangerous but grow slowly enough—a difference that can be exploited by screening procedures—to avoid an otherwise fatal outcome. We cannot define the size of this group, but the debate indicates that it is probably not large. Presently, none of the organizations issuing guidelines have seen fit to change them.
Role of Breast Self-Examination
In the HIP study, about one-third of breast cancer cases were found using mammography alone; overall, 75% were detectable on clinical examination.25 Although mammographic techniques have improved since the 1960s, the value of clinical examination and breast self-examination (BSE) seems less clear today. Many studies have shown that women who perform regular BSEs detect breast cancers at an earlier clinical and pathologic stage of the disease, but most studies have not shown an increased chance of survival, a difference best explained by lead-time bias.
The Swedish mammography study did not include either clinical examination or BSE, which raises the question as to whether those results would have been better had these modalities been included. The Canadian NBSS included instructions in BSE, and the teaching was reinforced at subsequent annual screenings, but it is not possible to say whether the practice had any effect since all participants received instruction. It seems logical to recommend widespread use of BSE as a screening tool that is free and available to everyone, but the evidence in support of it is far from solid and remains controversial. Furthermore, the same caveats exist as for mammography. BSE can be expected to prompt a significant number of unnecessary biopsies with their attendant anxiety. It is difficult to weigh anxiety about the outcome of an unnecessary biopsy against the risk of dying of breast cancer, but that is probably not the equation in this case, since there is far less evidence that BSE reduces mortality. On the other hand, most breast masses are still self-discovered by accident, suggesting that systematic BSE could have diagnosed the disease earlier, or smaller, but the evidence is that this does not change overall mortality.
Newer studies of BSE from China have failed to demonstrate a benefit.26 A meta-analysis from Canadian investigators shows no benefit of routinely teaching BSE to women and concludes that the net effect on the population is a harmful one because the potential for unnecessary biopsies and anxiety is not balanced by any gain in mortality reduction.27
Differential Diagnosis
In performing breast examinations, the first objective is the detection of potential abnormalities. Discovery of an abnormality is followed by further investigation and evaluation to decide whether intervention is necessary. Thus, all abnormalities are first “caught in the net,” and then more refined tests can be performed to decide whether the findings are important enough to warrant a biopsy. The traditional clinical guidelines of mobility, smoothness, and discreteness of breast lumps are useful, but careful judgment is always required to make sure that the diagnosis of carcinoma is not missed. Such tests as mammography and ultrasound can provide additional information and should be used in most cases. Fibroadenomas cannot be easily distinguished from gross cysts clinically, but a needle aspiration solves the problem instantaneously, and both are benign. Ultrasonography can also differentiate cysts from solid lesions and is useful when mammography detects small lesions, probably cysts, that cannot be palpated.
The most common breast lumps are caused by a process previously called fibrocystic disease or mastitis. A more modern trend is to label this condition as fibrocystic or fibroglandular changes. The process is benign, usually symmetric, and most often situated in the upper outer quadrants because that is where most of the glandular tissue is found. Microscopically, there is a combination of fibrosis and ductal swelling, which gives the process its classic “fibrocystic” name. Clinically, this is a rubbery zone, but focal areas can be quite firm or hard. If a gross cyst is present, it tends to be round, circumscribed, and somewhat movable. The process is usually accompanied by pain or tenderness and tends to be cyclic, with relief as the menstrual period begins. It affects 50% of premenopausal women but usually disappears at menopause (Figure 121-17). Fibroadenomas are also smooth, round, and mobile and occur from adolescence to menopause. The British colloquial term is breast mouse, which signifies extreme mobility.
In older women, the inferior ridge of the breast may be compressed in a crescent-shape pattern due to the weight of the overlying breast. This area represents simple fat compression and is usually benign. Many poorly defined processes require surgical biopsy to distinguish them from malignancy. Among these are sclerosing adenosis, hyperplasia with or without atypia, and mammary duct ectasia. The last is the end result of the fibrocystic process, with ducts filled with liquid and cellular debris accompanied by fibrous changes and lymphocytic infiltration.
Lesions that are less smooth and less mobile with poorly defined margins raise the suspicion of carcinoma. The identification of the nature of a mass requires careful integration of all available information, including mammography. Simple catechisms, such as “always biopsy,” are not the best guidelines. The clinician's responsibility is to establish the diagnosis of cancer when it exists but to minimize the number of unnecessary biopsies. A simplistic approach—biopsy of every clinical abnormality—would certainly identify all of the cancers but would be irresponsible, if not reckless, because of the large numbers of unnecessary operations. Similarly, abstaining from biopsy until the signs are absolutely incontrovertible would be dangerous, even though this approach would minimize unnecessary operations. The proper strategy is to apply all of the available information—history, clinical signs, mammographic and ultrasound information, and needle aspiration cytology—and to biopsy all of those lesions where a reasonable doubt as to their benign nature exists.
It is often said that mammography and needle aspiration cytology are plagued by false negatives. This view arises from an unrealistic expectation of these modalities. No single diagnostic modality is perfect, but accuracy in diagnosis improves with the integration of several tests. If the history and clinical examination suggest a benign process and a mammogram shows no abnormality, it is reasonable to integrate all of the information and use the mammogram to reinforce the clinical diagnosis of benign process. On the other hand, if the mammogram suggests suspicion for malignancy, then further steps, including biopsy, are warranted, even if the clinical examination is normal. Conversely, in a patient with a suspicious clinical mass and a normal mammogram, biopsy is necessary. Needle aspiration cytology can confirm the presence of carcinoma and allow for better planning for necessary surgery. If both the clinical and mammographic signs suggest a benign process, then a needle cytology of a fibroglandular area can add confidence to this impression and help avoid unnecessary surgery.
Diagnostic Aids: Imaging
Mammography
Although screening mammography, discussed above, is the primary indication for the use of mammography today, diagnostic mammography is often needed to clarify abnormalities discovered in the screening process. Diagnostic mammography is also useful when clinical signs and symptoms of breast disease exist. In this setting, it can bring new information to the process in question, give additional information about other areas of the breast that may be of concern, and provide information about the opposite breast. The usefulness of mammography increases in patients with heavy, lumpy, or pendulous breasts, which are difficult to examine clinically. A diagnostic mammogram should be performed whenever there is a clinical abnormality that requires diagnosis. Exceptions to this are obvious fibroadenomas or fibroglandular symptoms in very young women.
Digital Mammography
Similar to digital photography, the x-ray image is captured on an array of sensors, and the resulting image can be manipulated for better interpretation. As with all technical innovations, there will probably be several rounds of improvements before the technique becomes widely accepted.
Ultrasonography
The main use of ultrasonography is to establish the presence or absence of a cyst when the mammogram has revealed a mass. If the mass is palpable, this can be done more cheaply and quickly by needle puncture, but ultrasound is useful to show that nonpalpable, or scattered, small lucencies are truly cysts. Ultrasound has not become useful as a screening tool because it can resolve neither the very small architectural distortions nor the microcalcifications seen with good mammography equipment.
Thermography
The search for accurate imaging of the breast without ionizing radiation has persisted for three decades. Thermography measures heat radiating from breast tissue. Since tumors have increased vascularity, they often radiate more heat and can be discovered by thermography. This technique lacks precision and has never become widely used because of unacceptably high false-negative and false-positive rates.
Light Scanning
This is a modern update of simple transillumination. Infrared light is passed through the breast and read with a television camera tuned to specific frequencies. Spectroscopic analysis of absorption patterns is said to correlate well with diagnosis, but, again, a lack of specificity and sensitivity inhibits its usefulness.
A more modern approach is in experimental and developmental phase. This technique measures scatter from laser light and captures images with computed tomography (CT scans) computed from infrared detectors spaced around the breast.
Xeroradiography
This abandoned technique, popular in the 1970s, used a selenium-coated drum to receive the image. Xeroradiography was best for detecting microcalcifications but was inferior to film-screen mammography for finding small masses and was unacceptable because of its comparatively high levels of radiation.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
This technique takes advantage of the zone of neovascularization that surrounds growing tumors. Although MRI alone is not useful, contrast enhancement enables visualization of small lesions. In nonrandomized trials, sensitivity is reported to range from 88 to 100%.28 MRI is especially useful for distinguishing recurrence in a previously irradiated breast from scar tissue since scar tissue does not enhance. Because MRI is expensive and time consuming, even with modern equipment, its best role may be to separate borderline lesions discovered on routine mammography. This could eliminate some false-negatives. The false-positive rate in this situation would be less important since all would have been surgical candidates on the basis of mammography.
Diagnostic Aids: Fine-Needle and Core Biopsy
Both fine-needle aspirations and core needle aspiration biopsies are very useful. Both are inexpensive, easy to perform, and require no advance preparations. In experienced hands, fine-needle aspiration yields a 90% accuracy rate.29, 30 Core biopsy is not always reliable for very small lesions because the spring-loaded needle can push a small tumor aside rather than penetrate it. This is not a problem in x-ray image-guided biopsy (such as the mammotome biopsy) because compression of the breast stabilizes the tissue and prevents this. For lesions larger than approximately 1 cm, core needle biopsy is an excellent office procedure to obtain clear information on the nature of the lump and to differentiate invasive from noninvasive cancer when the fine-needle aspiration shows malignancy.
Any clinically suspicious mass should be aspirated. If a mass is punctured and nonbloody fluid is aspirated with disappearance of the lump, further concern is not warranted. If the mass persists in part or in whole, or if no fluid is obtained, then cytology should be obtained on that specimen (even with no gross fluid, the same needle puncture can be used for aspiration cytology). A careful followup within a short interval is wise. If necessary, a second fine-needle aspiration can be performed.
If surgical biopsy is considered necessary, modern concepts require a definitive approach. If patients with cancer are to be successfully treated by lumpectomy, this is best accomplished at the first intervention. The suspicious mass should be excised in its entirety with a cuff of normal tissue that can be processed by the pathologist for evaluation of margins. An incisional biopsy or casual excision of a mass without such control makes it more difficult to perform a proper localized cancer operation at a subsequent time.
- Diagnosis and Screening - Holland-Frei Cancer MedicineDiagnosis and Screening - Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine
- Margaritifera falcata nuclear 28S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequenceMargaritifera falcata nuclear 28S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequencegi|1772892|gb|U82349.1|MFU82349Nucleotide
- MIR125B-1 [Bos taurus]MIR125B-1 [Bos taurus]Gene ID:790993Gene
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...