These guidelines are a statement of consensus of the authors regarding their views of currently accepted approaches to treatment. Any clinician seeking to apply or consult these guidelines is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network makes no representation or warranties of any kind regarding their content, use, or application and disclaims any responsibility for their applications or use in any way.
These guidelines are copyrighted by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. All rights reserved. These guidelines and the illustrations herein may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the NCCN © 2009.
Disclosures for the NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines Panel
At the beginning of each NCCN guidelines panel meeting, panel members disclosed any financial support they have received from industry. Through 2008, this information was published in an aggregate statement in JNCCN and online. Furthering NCCN's commitment to public transparency, this disclosure process has now been expanded by listing all potential conflicts of interest respective to each individual expert panel member.
Individual disclosures for the NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines Panel members can be found on page 1096. (To view the most recent version of these guidelines and accompanying disclosures, visit the NCCN Web site at NCCN.org.)
These guidelines are also available on the Internet. For the latest update, please visit NCCN.org.
American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2007-2008. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/BCFF-Final.pdf. Accessed October 29. 2009.
HumphreyLLHelfandMChanBKWoolfSH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med2002;137:347-360.
BartonMBHarrisRFletcherSW. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How?JAMA1999;282:1270-1280.
BeversTB. Breast self-examination: an optional screening modality in National Comprehensive Cancer Network Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines. Breast Dis1998;9:230-231.
MossSMCuckleHEvansA. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2006;368:2053-2060.
ArmstrongKMoyeEWilliamsS. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med2007;146:516-526.
BerryDA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst1998;90:1431-1439.
van DijckJVerbeekAHendriksJ. Mammographic screening after the age of 65 years: early outcomes in the Nijmegen programme. Br J Cancer1996;74:1838-1842.
BadgwellBDGiordanoSHDuanZZ. Mammography before diagnosis among women age 80 years and older with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2008;26:2482-2488.
MandelblattJSSillimanR. Hanging in the balance: making decisions about the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening among the oldest old without a safety net of scientific evidence. J Clin Oncol2009;27:487-490.
YahalomJPetrekJABiddingerPW. Breast cancer in patients irradiated for Hodgkin's disease: a clinical and pathologic analysis of 45 events in 37 patients. J Clin Oncol1992;10:1674-1681.
BhatiaSRobisonLLOberlinO. Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med1996;334:745-751.
BhatiaSYasuiYRobisonLL. High risk of subsequent neoplasms continues with extended follow-up of childhood Hodgkin's disease: report from the Late Effects Study Group. J Clin Oncol2003;21:4386-4394.
van LeeuwenFEKlokmanWJStovallM. Roles of radiation dose, chemotherapy, and hormonal factors in breast cancer following Hodgkin's disease. J Natl Cancer Inst2003;95:971-980.
MetayerCLynchCFClarkeEA. Second cancers among long-term survivors of Hodgkin's disease diagnosed in childhood and adolescence. J Clin Oncol2000;18:2435-2443.
TravisLBHillDDoresGM. Cumulative absolute breast cancer risk for young women treated for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst2005;97:1428-1437.
OeffingerKCFordJSMoskowitzCS. Breast cancer surveillance practices among women previously treated with chest radiation for a childhood cancer. JAMA2009;301:404-414.
GailMHBrintonLAByarDP. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst1989;81:1879-1886.
GailMHCostantinoJP. Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2001;93:334-335.
RockhillBSpiegelmanDByrneC. Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst2001;93:358-366.
SpiegelmanDColditzGAHunterDHertzmarkE. Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst1994;86:600-607.
CostantinoJPGailMHPeeD. Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst1999;91:1541-1548.
GailMHCostantinoJPPeeD. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst2007;99:1782-1792.
SaslowDBoetesCBurkeW. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin2007;57:75-89.
ParmigianiGBerryDAguilarO. Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet1998;62:145-158.
AntoniouACCunninghamAPPetoJ. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer2008;98:1457-1466.
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol2003;21:2397-2406.
GoldfrankDChuaiSBernsteinJL. Effect of mammography on breast cancer risk in women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2006;15:2311-2313.
DupontWDParlFFHartmannWH. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer1993;71:1258-1265.
ArpinoGLauciricaRElledgeRM. Premalignant and in situ breast disease: biology and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med2005;143:446-457.
CarneyPAMigliorettiDLYankaskasBC. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med2003;138:168-175.
BergWABlumeJDCormackJB. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA2008;299:2151-2163.
KuhlCKSchradingSLeutnerCC. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2005;23:8469-8476.
Tilanus-LinthorstMVerhoogLObdeijnIM. A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography. Int J Cancer2002;102:91-95.
SkaanePYoungKSkjennaldA. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology2003;229:877-884.
SkaanePSkjennaldA. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II Study. Radiology2004;232:197-204.
SkaanePHofvindSSkjennaldA. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology2007;244:708-717.
LewinJMHendrickRED'OrsiCJ. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology2001;218:873-880.
PisanoEDGatsonisCHendrickE. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med2005;353:1773-1783.
PisanoEDHendrickREYaffeMJ. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology2008;246:376-383.
LordSJLeiWCraftP. A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer2007;43:1905-1917.
WarnerEPlewesDBHillKA. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA2004;292:1317-1325.
WarnerEMessersmithHCauserP. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med2008;148:671-679.
KriegeMBrekelmansCTBoetesC. Differences between first and subsequent rounds of the MRISC breast cancer screening program for women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Cancer2006;106:2318-2326.
KriegeMBrekelmansCTObdeijnIM. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography and MRI in women with an inherited risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat2006;100:109-119.
LeachMOBoggisCRDixonAK. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet2005;365:1769-1778.
PortERParkABorgenPI. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol2007;14:1051-1057.
KaplanSS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology2001;221:641-649.
BuchbergerWDeKoekkoek-DollPSpringerP. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol1999;173:921-927.
CorsettiVHoussamiNFerrariA. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer2008;44:539-544.
American College of Radiology Ultrasound BI-RADS Final Assessment Categories. Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/BIRADSAtlas/BIRADSAtlasexcerptedtext/BIRADSUltrasoundFirstEdition/AssessmentCategoriesDoc2.aspx. Accessed October 29 2009
BooiRCCarsonPLO'DonnellM. Characterization of cysts using differential correlation coefficient values from two dimensional breast elastography: preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol2008;34:12-21.
DalyCPBaileyJEKleinKAHelvieMA. Complicated breast cysts on sonography: is aspiration necessary to exclude malignancy?Acad Radiol2008;15:610-617.
DoshiDJMarchDECrisiGMCoughlinBF. Complex cystic breast masses: diagnostic approach and imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics2007;27(Suppl 1):S53-64.
RenzDMBaltzerPABottcherJ. Inflammatory breast carcinoma in magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison with locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol2008;15:209-221.
AbatiASimsirA. Breast fine needle aspiration biopsy: prevailing recommendations and contemporary practices. Clin Lab Med2005;25:631-654v.
LevinePSimsirACangiarellaJ. Management issues in breast lesions diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration and percutaneous core breast biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol2006;125(Suppl):S124-134.
PisanoEDFajardoLLCaudryDJ. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V. Radiology2001;219:785-792.
PijnappelRMvan den DonkMHollandR. Diagnostic accuracy for different strategies of image-guided breast intervention in cases of nonpalpable breast lesions. Br J Cancer2004;90:595-600.
VerkooijenHM. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: results of a multicenter prospective study with 95% surgical confirmation. Int J Cancer2002;99:853-859.
PandelidisSHeilandDJonesD. Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol2003;10:43-47.
Sigal-ZafraniBMullerKEl KhouryC. Vacuum-assisted large-core needle biopsy (VLNB) improves the management of patients with breast microcalcifications—analysis of 1009 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol2008;34:377-381.
BurbankFForcierN. Tissue marking clip for stereotactic breast biopsy: initial placement accuracy, long-term stability, and usefulness as a guide for wire localization. Radiology1997;205:407-415.
CangiarellaJGuthAAxelrodD. Is surgical excision necessary for the management of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core needle biopsy?: a report of 38 cases and review of the literature. Arch Pathol Lab Med2008;132:979-983.
ElsheikhTMSilvermanJF. Follow-up surgical excision is indicated when breast core needle biopsies show atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ: a correlative study of 33 patients with review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol2005;29:534-543.
MargenthalerJADukeDMonseesBS. Correlation between core biopsy and excisional biopsy in breast high-risk lesions. Am J Surg2006;192:534-537.
FrougeCTristantHGuinebretiereJM. Mammographic lesions suggestive of radial scars: microscopic findings in 40 cases. Radiology1995;195:623-625.
MiddletonLPGrantSStephensT. Lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy: when should it be excised?Mod Pathol2003;16:120-129.
HiroseMNobusawaHGokanT. MR ductography: comparison with conventional ductography as a diagnostic method in patients with nipple discharge. Radiographics2007;27(Suppl 1):S183-196.
BassettLWinchesterDPCaplanRB. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists. CA Cancer J Clin1997;47:171-190.