Recommendations for the Screening of Breast Cancer of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Society of Mastology and Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Association

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To present the update of the recommendations of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, the Brazilian Society of Mastology and the Brazilian Federation of Associations of Gynecology and Obstetrics for breast cancer screening in Brazil.

Methods Scientific evidence published in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, CINAHL and Lilacs databases between January 2012 and July 2022 was searched. Recommendations were based on this evidence by consensus of the expert committee of the three entities.

Recommendations Annual mammography screening is recommended for women at usual risk aged 40–74 years. Above 75 years, it should be reserved for those with a life expectancy greater than seven years. Women at higher than usual risk, including those with dense breasts, with a personal history of atypical lobular hyperplasia, classic lobular carcinoma in situ, atypical ductal hyperplasia, treatment for breast cancer or chest irradiation before age 30, or even, carriers of a genetic mutation or with a strong family history, benefit from complementary screening, and should be considered individually. Tomosynthesis is a form of mammography and should be considered in screening whenever accessible and available.

Resumo

Objetivo Apresentar a atualização das recomendações do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem da Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia e da Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia para o rastreamento do câncer de mama no Brasil.

Métodos Foram pesquisadas evidências científicas publicadas nas bases de dados Medline EMBASE Biblioteca Cochrane EBSCO CINAHL e Lilacs entre janeiro de 2012 e julho de 2022. As recomendações foram baseadas nessas evidências por consenso do comitê de especialistas das três entidades.

Recomendações A mamografia anual é recomendada para mulheres com risco habitual entre 40 e 74 anos. Acima de 75 anos deve ser reservado para aqueles com expectativa de vida superior a sete anos. Mulheres com risco maior do que o normal incluindo aquelas com mamas densas com história pessoal de hiperplasia lobular atípica carcinoma lobular in situ clássico hiperplasia ductal atípica tratamento para câncer de mama ou irradiação de tórax antes dos 30 anos ou ainda portadoras de doença genética mutação ou com forte histórico familiar beneficiam-se de triagem complementar e devem ser considerados individualmente. A tomossíntese é uma forma de mamografia e deve ser considerada na triagem sempre que acessível e disponível.

Note

Work performed at the National Mammography Commission (CNM) of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging (CBR), São Paulo, SP, together with the Brazilian Society of Mastology (SBM), São Paulo, SP, and the Brazilian Federation of Associations of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Febrasgo), Rio de Janeiro, RJ. As it is the result of a joint directive, it will be published in the respective journals of the three societies involved.

Publication History

Article published online:
08 September 2023

© 2023. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

• References

• 1 Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Estimativa 2023: incidência de câncer no Brasil [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2022 [cited 2023 Apr 9]. Available from: https://www.inca.gov.br/publicacoes/livros/estimativa-2023-incidencia-de-cancer-no-brasil
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Moshina N, Falk RS, Botteri E. et al. Quality of life among women with symptomatic, screen-detected, and interval breast cancer, and for women without breast cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional study from Norway. Qual Life Res 2022; 31 (04) 1057-1068 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-03017-7.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Canelo-Aybar C, Ferreira DS, Ballesteros M. et al. Benefits and harms of breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: A systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer. J Med Screen 2021; 28 (04) 389-404 DOI: 10.1177/0969141321993866.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Puliti D, Bucchi L, Mancini S. et al; IMPACT COHORT Working Group. Corrigendum to “Advanced breast cancer rates in the epoch of service screening: The 400,000 women cohort study from Italy” [Eur J Cancer 75 (April 2017) 109-116]. [Eur J Cancer 75 (April 2017) 109–116] Eur J Cancer 2017; 85: 160 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.016.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Urban LA, Schaefer MB, Duarte DL. et al. Recommendations of Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem, Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia, and Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia for imaging screening for breast cancer. Radiol Bras 2012; 45 (06) 334-339 DOI: 10.1590/S0100-39842012000600009.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Urban LABD, Chala LF, Bauab SDP. et al. Breast cancer screening: updated recommendations of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Breast Disease Society, and Brazilian Federation of Gynecological and Obstetrical Associations. Radiol Bras 2017; 50 (04) 244-249 DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2017-0069.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Miglioretti DL, Zhu W, Kerlikowske K. et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Breast tumor prognostic characteristics and biennial vs annual mammography, age, and menopausal status. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1 (08) 1069-1077 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3084.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Simon SD, Bines J, Werutsky G. et al. Characteristics and prognosis of stage I-III breast cancer subtypes in Brazil: The AMAZONA retrospective cohort study. Breast 2019; 44: 113-119 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2019.01.008.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Franzoi MA, Rosa DD, Zaffaroni F. et al. Advanced stage at diagnosis and worse clinicopathologic features in young women with breast cancer in Brazil: a subanalysis of the AMAZONA III Study (GBECAM 0115). J Glob Oncol 2019; 5: 1-10
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Lee CS, Destounis SV. Breast cancer screening for women at higher-than-average risk: updated recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol 2023; •••:S1546-1440(23)00334-4; [ ahead of print ] DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.04.002.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis: Version 1.2022 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Mar 7]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Walter LC, Schonberg MA. Screening mammography in older women: a review. JAMA 2014; 311 (13) 1336-1347 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.2834.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Lee CS, Lewin A, Reig B. et al. Women 75 years old or older: to screen or not to screen?. Radiographics 2023; 43 (05) e220166 DOI: 10.1148/rg.220166.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (02) W112-6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Miglioretti DL, Lange J, van den Broek JJ. et al. Radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening: a modeling study. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164 (04) 205-214 DOI: 10.7326/M15-1241.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL. et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014; 311 (24) 2499-2507 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.6095.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Heindel W, Weigel S, Gerß J. et al; TOSYMA Screening Trial Study Group. Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23 (05) 601-611 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00194-2.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Alabousi M, Wadera A, Kashif Al-Ghita M. et al. Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis, synthetic mammography, and digital mammography in breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113 (06) 680-690 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa205.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Conant EF, Talley MM, Parghi CR. et al. Mammographic screening in routine practice: multisite study of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography screenings. Radiology 2023; 307 (03) e221571 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.221571.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Lowry KP, Coley RY, Miglioretti DL. et al. Screening performance of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in community practice by patient age, screening round, and breast density. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (07) e2011792 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11792.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Yun SJ, Ryu CW, Rhee SJ, Ryu JK, Oh JY. Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 164 (03) 557-569 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4298-1.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Hovda T, Holen ÅS, Lång K. et al. Interval and consecutive round breast cancer after digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus standard 2D digital mammography in BreastScreen Norway. Radiology 2020; 294 (02) 256-264 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019191337.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Dang PA, Wang A, Senapati GM. et al. Comparing tumor characteristics and rates of breast cancers detected by screening digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 214 (03) 701-706 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.21060.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P. et al; RETomo Working Group. A randomized trial comparing breast cancer incidence and interval cancers after tomosynthesis plus mammography versus mammography alone. Radiology 2022; 303 (02) 256-266 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211132.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R. et al; American Cancer Society. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 Guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 2015; 314 (15) 1599-1614 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.12783.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Sardanelli F, Aase HS, Álvarez M. et al. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Eur Radiol 2017; 27 (07) 2737-2743 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4612-z.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Société d'Imagerie de la Femme. Préconisation de la SIFEM sur l'utilisation de la tomosynthèse en France [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.imageriedelafemme.org/preconisation-de-la-sifem-sur-lutilisation-de-la-tomosynthese-en-france/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 European Commission Initiatives on Breast and Colorectal Cancer. European breast cancer guidelines and screening tests: DBT or DM: tomosynthesis vs. digital mammography [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Available from: https://healthcare-quality.jrc.ec.europa.eu/european-breast-cancer-guidelines/screening-tests/DBT-or-DM
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Ministério da Saúde. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Instrução Normativa - IN No. 92, de 27 de maio de 2021. Dispõe sobre requisitos sanitários para a garantia da qualidade e da segurança de sistemas de mamografia, e dá outras providências [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Available from: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/anvisa/2020/in092_27_05_2021.pdf
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Damilakis J, Frija G, Brkljacic B. et al; European Society of Radiology. How to establish and use local diagnostic reference levels: an ESR EuroSafe Imaging expert statement. Insights Imaging 2023; 14 (01) 27 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-023-01369-x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Hadadi I, Rae W, Clarke J, McEntee M, Ekpo E. Diagnostic performance of adjunctive imaging modalities compared to mammography alone in women with non-dense and dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 2021; 21 (04) 278-291 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.03.006.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Phi XA, Tagliafico A, Houssami N, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2018; 18 (01) 380 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T. et al; J-START investigator groups. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387 (10016): 341-348 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00774-6.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Harada-Shoji N, Suzuki A, Ishida T. et al. Evaluation of adjunctive ultrasonography for breast cancer detection among women aged 40–49 years with varying breast density undergoing screening mammography: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (08) e2121505 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21505.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Brem RF, Tabár L, Duffy SW. et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology 2015; 274 (03) 663-673 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132832.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Wu T, Warren LJ. the added value of supplemental breast ultrasound screening for women with dense breasts: a single center Canadian experience. Can Assoc Radiol J 2022; 73 (01) 101-106 DOI: 10.1177/08465371211011707.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Rebolj M, Assi V, Brentnall A, Parmar D, Duffy SW. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2018; 118 (12) 1559-1570 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-018-0080-3.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The connecticut experiments second year: ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J 2015; 21 (02) 175-180 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12386.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM. et al; DENSE Trial Study Group. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (22) 2091-2102 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903986.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Lopez-Garcia MA, Geyer FC, Lacroix-Triki M, Marchió C, Reis-Filho JS. Breast cancer precursors revisited: molecular features and progression pathways. Histopathology 2010; 57 (02) 171-192 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03568.x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Hartmann LC, Radisky DC, Frost MH. et al. Understanding the premalignant potential of atypical hyperplasia through its natural history: a longitudinal cohort study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2014; 7 (02) 211-217 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0222.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Worsham MJ, Abrams J, Raju U. et al. Breast cancer incidence in a cohort of women with benign breast disease from a multiethnic, primary health care population. Breast J 2007; 13 (02) 115-121 DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00388.x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 London SJ, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Colditz GA. A prospective study of benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. JAMA 1992; 267 (07) 941-944
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. The influence of family history on breast cancer risk in women with biopsy-confirmed benign breast disease: results from the Nurses' Health Study. Cancer 2006; 107 (06) 1240-1247 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22136.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 Menes TS, Kerlikowske K, Lange J, Jaffer S, Rosenberg R, Miglioretti DL. Subsequent breast cancer risk following diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia on needle biopsy. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3 (01) 36-41 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3022.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 Page DL, Kidd Jr TE, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Rogers LW. Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol 1991; 22 (12) 1232-1239 DOI: 10.1016/0046-8177(91)90105-x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Brentnall AR, Cuzick J. Risk models for breast cancer and their validation. Stat Sci 2020; 35 (01) 14-30 DOI: 10.1214/19-STS729.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975–2018 [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 3]. Available from: https://www.seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2018/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Houssami N, Abraham LA, Kerlikowske K. et al. Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013; 22 (05) 946-961 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1208-T.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Gweon HM, Cho N, Han W. et al. Breast MR imaging screening in women with a history of breast conservation therapy. Radiology 2014; 272 (02) 366-373 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14131893.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 Giess CS, Poole PS, Chikarmane SA, Sippo DA, Birdwell RL. Screening breast MRI in patients previously treated for breast cancer: diagnostic yield for cancer and abnormal interpretation rate. Acad Radiol 2015; 22 (11) 1331-1337 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.05.009.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 52 Cho N, Han W, Han BK. et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography plus ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging in women 50 years or younger at diagnosis and treated with breast conservation therapy. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3 (11) 1495-1502 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1256.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D. et al; ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012; 307 (13) 1394-1404 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.388.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 Bae MS, Sung JS, Bernard-Davila B, Sutton EJ, Comstock CE, Morris EA. Survival outcomes of screening with breast MRI in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. J Breast Imaging 2020; 2 (01) 29-35 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbz083.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 55 Sippo DA, Burk KS, Mercaldo SF. et al. Performance of screening breast MRI across women with different elevated breast cancer risk indications. Radiology 2019; 292 (01) 51-59 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181136.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 56 Lehman CD, Lee JM, DeMartini WB. et al. Screening MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016; 108 (03) djv349 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv349.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 57 Weinstock C, Campassi C, Goloubeva O. et al. Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance in breast cancer survivors. Springerplus 2015; 4: 459 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1158-5.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 58 Wernli KJ, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K. et al. Surveillance breast MRI and mammography: comparison in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Radiology 2019; 292 (02) 311-318 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182475.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 59 Smith D, Sepehr S, Karakatsanis A, Strand F, Valachis A. Yield of surveillance imaging after mastectomy with or without reconstruction for patients with prior breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5 (12) e2244212 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.44212.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 60 Mulder RL, Kremer LC, Hudson MM. et al; International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group. Recommendations for breast cancer surveillance for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer given chest radiation: a report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14 (13) e621-e629 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70303-6.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 61 Swerdlow AJ, Cooke R, Bates A. et al. Breast cancer risk after supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma in England and Wales: a National Cohort Study. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (22) 2745-2752 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8835.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 62 Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R. et al. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (36) 5265-5273 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2294.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 63 National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic. Version 3. 2023 [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=2&id=1503
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 64 Guindalini RSC, Viana DV, Kitajima JPFW. et al. Detection of germline variants in Brazilian breast cancer patients using multigene panel testing. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 4190 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07383-1.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 65 Frebourg T, Bajalica Lagercrantz S, Oliveira C, Magenheim R, Evans DG. European Reference Network GENTURIS. Guidelines for the Li-Fraumeni and heritable TP53-related cancer syndromes. Eur J Hum Genet 2020; 28 (10) 1379-1386 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0638-4.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 66 Chiarelli AM, Blackmore KM, Muradali D. et al. Performance measures of magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography in the high risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; 112 (02) 136-144 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz079.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 67 Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT. et al; FaMRIsc study group. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20 (08) 1136-1147 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30275-X.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 68 Phi XA, Saadatmand S, De Bock GH. et al. Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2016; 114 (06) 631-637 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2016.32.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar