METHODS: From October 2011 to June 2015, 1,778 asymptomatic women, aged 40-74 years, underwent subsidised mammographic screening. All patients had a clinical breast examination before mammographic screening, and women with mammographic abnormalities were referred to a surgeon. The cancer detection rate and variables associated with a recommendation for adjunct ultrasonography were determined.
RESULTS: The mean age for screening was 50.8 years and seven cancers (0.39%) were detected. The detection rate was 0.64% in women aged 50 years and above, and 0.12% in women below 50 years old. Adjunct ultrasonography was recommended in 30.7% of women, and was significantly associated with age, menopausal status, mammographic density and radiologist's experience. The main reasons cited for recommendation of an adjunct ultrasound was dense breasts and mammographic abnormalities.
DISCUSSION: The cancer detection rate is similar to population-based screening mammography programmes in high-income Asian countries. Unlike population-based screening programmes in Caucasian populations where the adjunct ultrasonography rate is 2-4%, we report that 3 out of 10 women attending screening mammography were recommended for adjunct ultrasonography. This could be because Asian women attending screening are likely premenopausal and hence have denser breasts. Radiologists who reported more than 360 mammograms were more confident in reporting a mammogram as normal without adjunct ultrasonography compared to those who reported less than 180 mammograms.
CONCLUSION: Our subsidised opportunistic mammographic screening programme is able to provide equivalent cancer detection rates but the high recall for adjunct ultrasonography would make screening less cost-effective.
Methodology: A search was done on PubMed, limited to reviews and the English language only. The search terms used were 'BRCA' or 'PALB2' or 'TP53' and 'surgery'. Fifteen articles were identified by searching and one article was obtained from other sources.
Results: Breast-conserving surgery has equivalent survival, but may have an increased risk of local recurrence, compared to mastectomy among BRCA mutation carriers. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy may not improve overall survival, despite reducing the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer. The use of preoperative genetic testing allows patients to have combined curative and prophylactic surgery. However, preoperative genetic testing may influence patients to make rash decisions. In healthy BRCA mutation carriers, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy is done to prevent breast cancer from occurring. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy is highly effective in reducing the risk of breast cancer in healthy BRCA mutation-positive women and may have a survival benefit. Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces the risk of ovarian cancer, but may not have an effect on the risk of breast cancer. There is a lack of studies on surgery for non-BRCA mutations. TP53 and PALB2 are potentially high-risk mutations for breast cancer, which may justify the use of prophylactic surgery. Advice should be given on a case-by-case basis.
Conclusion: A comprehensive approach is needed to provide optimum treatment for breast cancer patients with deleterious mutations.