Recomendaciones actuales para el tamizaje del cáncer de seno de acuerdo a la evidencia médica

Autores/as

  • Javier Romero Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá.
  • Miguel Angarita Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá.
  • Rafael Burbano Hospital San Ignacio.

Palabras clave:

cáncer de seno, tamizaje, mamografía

Resumen

La mamografía en el tamizaje del cáncer de seno se ha utilizado buscando reducir la mortalidad atribuida a esta enfermedad. Sin embargo, continuas áreas de controversia en cuanto a su real impacto en la mortalidad, edad de inicio, intervalo entre mamografías han sido publicados. El análisis completo de esta información es tema ineludible para el cuerpo médico, en especial para aquel/os involucrados en la atención directa de la población femenina. Esta revisión pretende resumir las principales recomendaciones del uso de la mamografía en el tamizaje de seno de acuerdo a la evidencia médica. Se revisan además los beneficios directos e indirectos del tamizaje mamográfico, así como sus potenciales riesgos y desventajas.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Javier Romero, Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá.

Radiólogo Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá.

Miguel Angarita, Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá.

Residente Radiología Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá.

Rafael Burbano, Hospital San Ignacio.

Residente Univ. Javeriana Hospital San Ignacio.

Referencias bibliográficas

l. PATINO JF, ESPINOSAH. Mamografía en la práctica clínica. Trib Médica (Colombia) 1990; ~ 1: 206.
2. PATIÑO JF La mamografía en la práctica quirúrgica. En: Lecciones de Cirugía. Editorial Médica Panamericana, Buenos Aires, Bogotá, 200 I.
3. Fue; SA, D'OKsl CJ, HENIWICK RE, et al. American Collage of Radiology Guidelines for Breast Cancel' Screening. AJR 199~; 171: 29-33.
4. The ACR and screening mammography: consensus and continued commitment. ARC Bull June 1997; 53: 4-9.
5. SHAPIKO S. Screening: assessment of current studies. Cancel' 1994; 74: 231-23~.
6. HENDRICKRE, SMITII RA. RUTLED(iEJH 11I, SMARTCR. Benefit of screening mammography in women age 40-49: a new metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancel' Inst 1997; 22: 87-92.
7. SMART CR, HENDRICK RE, RUTLEDciEJH 11I, SMITH RA. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40-49: current evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancel' 1995; 75: 1619-1626.
8. SMITIIRA. The epidemiology of breast cancer. RSNA Categorical Course in breast imaging syllabus 1995, pp 7-20.
9. PACE DL, DUPONT WD. Premalignant conditions and markers of elevated risk in the breast and their management. Surg Clin North Am 1990; 70: ~31-851.
10. LARSSON LG, ANDERSSON1, BJURsTAMN, et al. Updated overview of the Swedish randomized trials on breast cancer screening with mammography: age groups 40-90 at randomization. Monogr Natl Cancel' Inst 1997; 22: 57-62.
11. ANDERSON 1, JANZON L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under 50: update results from the Malmo mammographic screening programo Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 63-68. 12. BJURSTAMN, B.lORNELDL, DUI'FYSW, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode 01' detection for women agcs 39-49 years at randomization. Cancer 1997; 80: 2091-2099.
13. SICKLES EA, OMINSKY SH, SOLI.ITTO RA, GALYIN HB, MONTICCIOLO DL. Medical audit 01' a rapid through put mammography screening practice: methodology and results 01' 27,114 examinations. Radiology 1990; 175: 323-327.
14. LINYERMN, PASTERSB. Mammography outcomes in a practice setting by age: prognostic factors, sensitivity, and positive biopsy ratio Monogram Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 113-118.
15. KOPANSDB, MOORERH, MCCARTYKA, et al. Positive predictive value 01' breast biopsy performed as result 01' mammography: there is no abrupt change at agc 50 years. Radiology 1996; 200: 357-360.
16. JOENSUH, KLEMIPJ, TUOMINENJ, RASOMENO, PARYINEN1. Breast cancer found at screening and preyious detection by womcn thcmselyes (Letter). Lancet 1992; 339: 315.
17. FEIG SA, HENDRICK RE. Radiation risk fram screening mammography 01' women aged 40-49 years. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 119-24.
18. FEIG SA, Estimation 01' currently attainable benefit from mammographic screening 01' women aged 40-49 years. Canccr 1995; 75: 2412-2419.
19. DUFFY SW, DAY NE, TAllAR L, CHEN H-H, SMITHTe. Markoy models 01' breast tumor progression: sorne age-specific results. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 93-98.
20. TAllARL, FAGERBERGG, CIIEN H-H, ct al. Etlicacy ofbreast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer 1995; 75: 2507-2517.
21. GARDENOSAG, EKLUNGGW. Scrccning mammography in women 40-49 years old. AJR 1995; 164: 1104- II OÓ
22. MOSKOWITZM. Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology 1986; 161: 37-41.
23. TAllAR L, FAGERBERGG, DAY NE, HOLMBERGL. What is the optimum interval between screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results 01' thc Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial. Br J Cancer 1987; 55: 547-551.
24. Screening for breast cancer. Recommendations and rationale. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; February, 2002.
25. PETO R, BOREMANJ, CLARKE M, DAYIESC, BERAL V. UK and USA breast cancer deaths down 25% in year 2000 at ages 20- 69. Lancet2000; 355: 1822.
26. RIESLAG, KOSARYCL, HANKI:YBF, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1973-1994. Bcthcsda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1997:124. NIH publication 97-2789.
27. MONTESINOS,MANUELR; FALCO,JORC;¡'E; MEZZADRI,et al Valor de los métodos de seguimiento en el postoperatorio del cáncer de mama. Rey. Argent. Cir; 61 (1/2): 30-6, jul.-ago. 1991.
28. SOUZA,AURÉLlOZECCHIDE; HEGG, ROBERTO;SHU, SIOK BWEET. Correlac;ao entre diagnóstico clínico, mamográfico e anatomo patológico em patologia mamária: análise dc 125 I casos J. bras. ginecol: 95(10): 459-61, out. 1985.
29. MARTíNEZCORTA,VIRGINIA.Rol dc la anatomía patológica en el estudio del cáncer mamario. Rey. san id. del'. ac. (Santiago de Chile); 6( 1): 17-25, enc.-mar. 1989.
30. MONTESINOS,MANUEL R; FALCO.JORC;¡:E; CURlCHET. H. et al. Análisis costolbeneficio de la mamografía en el postoperatorio del cáncer de mama. Rey. Argent. Cir; 60(3/4): 116-8, mar.-abr. 1991.
31. SOLÉ"CLAUDIO;FERNÁNDEZ,CONsul'ln; ACEYEDO,JUANCARLOS; et al. Programa de screening y tratamiento de cáncer de mama. Rey. chil. obstet. ginecol; 55(2): 92-ó, 1990.
32. PIERARTPACHECO,JORGE.Eficacia dc los métodos de diagnóstico en patología mamaria. Rey. chil. cir; 45( 3): 282-7, jun. 1993.
33. SHAPIROS, VENET W, STRAX. VENET L. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the health insurance plan project and its sequelae. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniY Press. 1988: 13.
34. SEIDMANH, STELLMANS, MUSHINSKIMH. A different perspective on breast cancer risk factors: some implications 01' the nonattributable risk. CA Cancer J Clin 1982; 32: 301 -3 I 3.
35. VOGELVG, YEOMANSA, HIC;C;INBOTHAME. Clinical management 01' women at increased risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993; 28: 195-210.
36. BURKE W, DALY M, GARBERJ, et al. For the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. Recommendations for follow-up care 01' individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer: 11.BRCA I and BRCA 2. JAMA 1997; 277: 997-1003.
37. ROIlINSON,DAYIDS; LCNE, NEIL; SCIIWADE.JAMESG. Pruebas de tamizaje en el diagnóstico precoz del cáncer mamario Trib. méd. (Bogotá); 81(4): 187-90, abr. 1990.
38. Slandars 2000-200 1, Reston, VA: American College 01' Radiology; 2000.
39. Kopans D future directions for breast imaging. Course No. 625. Update Course in Diagnostic Radiology Physics: Physical aspects 01' breast imaging-Currenl and future Considerations. RSNA Supplement 01' Radiology 221; 86 Noy 200 l.
40. ZHANGY. KIEL DP, KREGERBE et al. Bone mass and the risk 01' breast cancer among postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:611-7.
41. SATARIANOWA, RAGLANDDR. The effect 01' comorbidity on 3 year survival 01' women with primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 104-10.
42. WELCH HG. Diagnostic lasting following screening mammography in the elderly. JNCI 1998; 90: 1389-92.
43. KERLlKowsKE KM, GRADY D, BARCLAYJ, et al. Positive predictive value 01' screening mammography by age and family history 01' breast cancel JAMA 1993; 270: 2444-50.
44. DERsAw DD. Y AHALOMJ, PETREKJA. Breast carcinoma in women previously treated for Hodgkin disease: radiologic evaluation. Radiology 1992; 184-421-3.
45. BASSETT LW. Quality determinants 01' mammography: c1inical image evaluation R5NA Categorical Course in Breast Imaging, 1995; 57-67.
46. SHAPIROS, VENET, STRAXP et al. lOto 14 years effect 01' screening in breast cancel' mortality. J Nat Cancel' last 1982; 69: 349-55.
47. GOTZSCIIE P, OLSEN O. Is screening for breast cancer' with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000: 355; 129-133.
48. GOTZSCHE P, OLSEN O. Cochrane review on screening breast cancel' with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358: 1340-41.
49. HORTON R. Screening mammography-an overview revisited. Lancet 2001; 358: 1284-1285. 50. WELCH HG, SCHWARTZLM, WOLOSIIIN S. Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence 01' success against cancer') JAMA 2000; 283: 2975-8.
51. MOSKOWITZ M. Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology 1986; 18: 1137-41.
52. HUYNH PT. JAROLlMEK AM, DAYE S. The false-negative mammogram. Radiographic 1998; 18: 1137-54.
53. TENGS TO, ADAMs M, PUSKIN JS et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15: 369-90.
54. SAKORAFASGH, TSIOTOU AG. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 01' the breast: evolving perspectives. Cancel' Treat Rev 2000; 26: 103-25.

Descargas

Publicado

2003-03-20

Cómo citar

(1)
Romero, J. .; Angarita, M. .; Burbano, R. Recomendaciones Actuales Para El Tamizaje Del cáncer De Seno De Acuerdo a La Evidencia médica. Rev Colomb Cir 2003, 18, 51-59.

Número

Sección

Artículo de Revisión

Métricas

QR Code

Algunos artículos similares: