The Dilemma of Breast Cancer Screening

By : Kevin Pho
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently released their recommendations for breast cancer screening.
Previously, they had recommended a mammogram every 1 to 2 years for women between the ages of 40 to 49.
Now, they recommend more intensive screening:
Due to the high incidence of breast cancer in the US and the potential to reduce deaths from it when caught early, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College) today issued new breast cancer screening guidelines that recommend mammography screening be offered annually to women beginning at age 40. Previous College guidelines recommended mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40 and annually beginning at age 50.
This contradicts the 2009 recommendation from the USPSTF, which recommended an individualized approach and against routine screening for women aged 40-49.
No wonder patients are confused.
In our society, which values tests and generally believes that earlier cancer detection is better care, the ACOG recommendations were met with media acclaim.
Gary Schwitzer, for instance, points out the bias in CNN’s reporting the guidelines, and specifically takes senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen’s Tweet on the issue to task:
On many occasions that we’ve written about on this blog in recent years, CNN has demonstrated a bias in favor of screening – touting benefits, minimizing harms. Sanjay Gupta’s badgering of US Preventive Services Task Force member Lucy Marion will always stand out in my mind – and in the minds of many of who saw it – as opinionated “attack” journalism that reflects the polarization we often see in politics now creeping (leaping?) into health care and into health care journalism.
As to which guideline to believe, physicians will be divided. I suspect that physicians who practice more strict evidence-based medicine will go with the USPSTF recommendations, while gynecologists will follow their college’s more aggressive recommendations.
Although I’m a proponent of clinical guidelines, obtaining the needed consensus will be difficult. There are too many proverbial cooks in the pot, with every medical society releasing potentially conflicting recommendations and confusing both doctors and patients.
@KevinMD

Phyllodes Tumor

Findings: Mammogram shows a lobular hyper dense mass with partially circumscribed and partially obscured margins. No calcifications visible

Meaning : leaf-like in Greek, phyllodes tumors demonstrate papillary growth of epithelial lined stroma
Key point: Large rapidly growing circumscribed mass without calcifications
Mammography :Phyllodes tumors appear as a dense, round or oval masses with circumscribed or lobulated borders on mammography. Indistinct margins favor malignant transformation. Calcifications are rare but when present are coarse.
Ultrasonography: demonstrates an oval, round, or lobulated hypoechoic mass. Cystic spaces favor malignancy. Increased vascularity can be common .

T1W1/T2W1 :Phyllodes tumors appear heterogeneously hypointense on T1WI with slit like areas of increased T2WI representing fluid. Enhancement is typically rapid and suspicious kinetics can be observed in approximately 33% of cases.
Differential Diagnosis:
Typically occurring in younger women, fibroadenomas also appear as oval or lobulated mass but have dense, coarse calcifications, homogeneous echogenicity, and more moderate enhancement characteristics.
While there is some overlap with phyllodes tumors demonstrating malignant transformation, breast carcinoma is more likely to demonstrate indistinct margins. Pleomorphic calcifications also favor carcinoma.
Primary sarcoma of the breast is distinguished from phyllodes tumors by the absence of epithelial components. The clinical course of primary sarcoma of the breast is similar to malignant phyllodes tumors.

Ultrasound shows an irregularly shaped mass with heterogeneous echogenicity and ill-defined borders.

Treatment: is by surgical excision with greater than 1 cm margins. Mastectomy may be required for large tumors. Axillary node dissection is usually unnecessary. With respect to adjuvant therapy, radiation reduces local recurrence. Chemotherapy has demonstrated no benefit.