Should Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Influence Evaluation of Breast Abnormalities?
Am Fam Physician. 1911 Jul 1;70(1):35-36.
When a woman presents with a breast complaint, initial management nearly always includes a clinical breast examination and an imaging study. Frequently, risk factors for breast cancer are assessed. Individualized risk predictions employing more formalized tools, such as the Gail model1 or the Claus model,2 are being used increasingly in screening populations. However, an important question remains: in symptomatic women, are risk factors for breast cancer still clinically important? Unfortunately, the answer is unclear.
The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer3 states that when a woman presents with a breast lump or a suspicious change in breast texture, her risk factors for breast cancer should be noted, but the presence or absence of risk factors should not influence decisions about further work-up. Similarly, recommendations for evaluation and follow-up of mammographic abnormalities generally are made without regard to individual breast cancer risk. However, improved use of breast cancer risk factors has the potential to reduce the number of biopsies performed in women who do not have cancer and to increase the percentage of positive biopsies.
In response to a topic nomination by Kaiser Permanente Northern California, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) funded a systematic review of the literature.4 The objective was to assess published evidence on the relationship between risk factors, breast abnormalities (clinical symptoms or mammographic findings), and breast cancer, and to provide practical recommendations for applying this information.
The systematic review4 found that although many studies reported breast cancer incidence in association with risk factors (menstrual status, hormone therapy, pregnancy history, family history, age) or abnormal breast findings, relatively few studies reported the incidence in association with both. In addition, the literature suffers from a lack of standardization of terms for reporting information about breast disease. Hence, reported results vary, depending on whether breast cancer incidence is derived from the number of lesions or the number of affected patients.
The literature on mammography also is problematic. Although mammographic results almost always are given, variations in reporting formats make it impossible to combine data in a useful way. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) terminology was developed for the purpose of standardizing mammogram reports.5,6 Widespread use of the BI-RADS nomenclature (e.g., in studies that relate cancer incidence by age to BI-RADS scores) could make data integration possible.7–11
Thus, although risk factors for breast cancer are well established and commonly used to direct evaluation in other clinical scenarios, current evidence does not permit assessment of the impact of individual risk factors on the likelihood that a breast abnormality represents cancer. Family history,12–19 pregnancy and menstrual history,13,14 and hormone therapy20 lacked a consistent evidence base for inferring any conclusions about the risk of cancer when these factors were associated with a clinical or mammographic abnormality. The only exception is patient age. In this instance, studies show that age over 50 years greatly increases the risk of breast cancer in women with a clinical or mammographic abnormality.
At this time, no published evidence supports modifying the work-up of breast symptoms or mammographic abnormalities based on risk factors other than age.
1. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle KD, Green SB, Schairer C, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 198981187986
2. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 19947364351
3. The palpable breast lump: information and recommendations to assist decision-making when a breast lump is detected. The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists. CMAJ. 1998;158:(suppl 3):S3-8
4. Diagnosis and management of specific breast abnormalities. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2001; evidence report/technology assessment, 1530-4396, no. 33; AHRQ publication no. 01-E 046.
5. Barton MB, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: frequency, evaluation and outcome. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:651-7
6. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:35-40
7. Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology. 1994;192:439-42
8. Flynn MB, Amin EA, Martin RC II. Mobile mammography screening: the James Graham Brown Cancer Center three year experience. Implications for public and professional education. J Ky Med Assoc. 1998;96:17-20
9. Cimitan M, Volpe R, Candiani E, Gusso G, Ruffo R, Borsatti E, et al. The use of thallium-201 in the pre-operative detection of breast cancer: an adjunct to mammography and ultrasonography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1995;22:1110-7
10. Viera MR, Weinholtz JH. Technetium-99m tetrofosmin scintigraphy in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996;22:331-4
11. Sillar R, Howarth D, Clark D. The initial Australian experience of technetium-99m sestamibi scintimammography: a complementary test in the management of breast cancer. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67:433-7
12. Brendlinger DL, Robinson R, Sylvest V, Burton S. Stereotactic core breast biopsy. An alternative. Va Med Q. 1994;121:179-84
13. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:1622-9
14. Lee MM, Petrakis NL, Wrensch MR, King EB, Miike R, Sickles E. Association of abnormal nipple aspirate cytology and mammographic pattern and density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1994;3:33-6
15. Harkins K, Tartter PI, Hermann G, Squitieri R, Brower ST, Keller RJ. Multivariate analysis of roentgenologic characteristics and risk factors for nonpalpable carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;178:149-54
16. Janes RH, Bouton MS. Initial 300 consecutive stereotactic core-needle breast biopsies by a surgical group. Am J Surg. 1994;168:533-6
17. Kerin MJ, O’Hanlon DM, Khalid AA, Kent PJ, McCarthy PA, Given HF. Mammographic assessment of the symptomatic nonsuspicious breast. Am J Surg. 1997;173:181-4
18. Shaw AD, Gazet JC, Ford HT. The importance of the non-palpable lesion in women under 50, detected by mammography on self-referral for screening, symptoms or follow up. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1995;21:284-6
19. Tran DQ, Wilkerson DK, Namm J, Zeis MA, Cottone FJ. Needle-localized breast biopsy for mammographic abnormalities: a community hospital experience. Am Surg. 1999;65:283-8
20. Harvey JA. Use and cost of breast imaging for post-menopausal women undergoing hormone replacement therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1615-9
Copyright © 1911 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact email@example.com for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions