4.4 Article

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Transgender Breast Cancer Screening

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 11S, Pages 5502-5515

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2021.09.005

Keywords

Appropriateness Criteria; Appropriate Use Criteria; AUC; Breast cancer; Breast cancer screening; Risk; Screening; Transgender; Transgender person(s)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals are based on sex assigned at birth, risk factors, and use of exogenous hormones, but there is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the efficacy of screening for this population.
Breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals are based on the sex assigned at birth, risk factors, and use of exogenous hormones. Insufficient evidence exists to determine whether transgender people undergoing hormone therapy have an overall lower, average, or higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to birth-sex controls. Furthermore, there are no longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of breast cancer screening in the transgender population. In the absence of definitive data, current evidence is based on data extrapolated from cisgender studies and a limited number of cohort studies and case reports published on the transgender community. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available