Breast Cancer Screening and Management

## **Chapter 7** Persistent Breast Cancer Pain

*Sachin Sahni and James Khan*

## **Abstract**

Fortunately, with advances in screening and management, the prognosis of breast cancer has substantially improved. However, as patients with breast cancer are living much longer, consequences of management are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. This pain disorder, referred to as Post-Mastectomy Pain Syndrome (PMPS) is common and typically presents as pain with neuropathic features around the surgical incision. This pain disorder is associated with negative effects on the patient's social and psychological well-being as well as increased healthcare expenditures. Despite the common occurrence of this disorder, it is vastly under-recognized with a lack of preventative and treatment options. This chapter aims to outline the management of persistent breast surgery pain. The pathophysiology and etiology will be reviewed, followed by tools that clinicians can implement in order to appropriately diagnose neuropathic pain. Pertinent risk factors that are commonly seen in practice will be outlined, followed by non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and interventional therapeutic options that can be offered.

**Keywords:** persistent pain, chronic pain, neuropathy, post-mastectomy pain syndrome, intercostobrachial neuralgia, intercostal neuralgia, psychological factors, axillary lymph node dissection, postoperative pain, pharmacological therapy, interventional therapy, nerve blocks, neuromodulation

## **1. Introduction**

Breast cancer continues to be the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide [1] and cases in the United States are expected to rise by 64% between 2011 and 2030 [2]. Nonetheless, with significant progress in prevention and treatment over the past 30 years, survivorship has substantially increased [3], most notably in women ages 20–39 years [4]. The 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer now approaches 90% [5] and while mortality rates have declined, it presents a unique challenge, as long-term complications of breast cancer management are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly persistent post-surgical pain.

Persistent pain has become a significant area of concern as it appears to afflict up to 50% of women after breast cancer surgery [6]. This pain disorder is typically neuropathic in nature and described as burning, spontaneous, electrical, numbness, tingling, and pinprick pain affecting the area of surgery in the chest, shoulder, axilla, and medial arm [7]. While the literature commonly refers to this presentation as post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS), it is important to note that damage of nerves can occur after all types of breast cancer surgeries, including unilateral or bilateral surgeries, radical mastectomies, lumpectomies, and from axillary lymph node dissection. Thus, in 2016 Waltho et al. proposed the term post-breast surgery pain syndrome (PBSPS) which is not only a more inclusive term but may also help to decrease the wide variation in overall prevalence [8].

The International Association for Study of Pain (IASP) also recently updated their definition to include all types of breast surgeries in the classification. Thus, the term "persistent pain after breast surgery" was chosen, and it is pain which persists for more than 3 months after a surgical incision to the anterolateral chest wall and in some cases in the ipsilateral axillary region [9].

Management of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery can be a challenging task with the lack of effective treatment options [10]. Furthermore, this pain disorder places a financial burden on both patients and the healthcare system with studies showing an estimated cost of approximately \$1 billion USD annually to the US healthcare system [11]. Identifying perioperative risk factors associated with the development of persistent pain can help decrease the incidence and the need for ongoing healthcare services.

In this chapter we will provide an outline of the pathophysiology of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery, including a review of pertinent risk factors, clinical features, and various treatment options.

## **2. Pathophysiology**

Pain can originate from a multitude of sources, such as from injury to the overlying skin, tissue, or nerves during surgical intervention, or from the effects of radiation and chemotherapy. Additionally, the origin is frequently multifactorial, with psychosocial factors also playing a role.

### **2.1 Nerve injury**

Surgical factors can cause nerve injuries that contribute to persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. Direct nerve injury, for instance from skin incisions, surgical retractors, or extensive axillary lymph node dissection, can lead to direct nerve transections [12]. This can subsequently lead to the eventual formation of neuromas and scar adhesions. Nerve damage can also be due to indirect injury from postoperative inflammation, hematoma formation, or positioning during surgery (resulting in nerve stretching during the procedure) [12]. The nerves most commonly at risk for injury during breast cancer surgery are the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN), the thoracic intercostal nerves, medial and lateral pectoral nerves, the thoracodorsal nerve, and the long thoracic nerve [13].

Intercostobrachial neuralgia is a well-known cause of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery and presents as neuropathic pain in the ipsilateral axilla and arm [14]. The ICBN is the lateral cutaneous branch of the second intercostal nerve (T2) and is pure sensory in nature [12]. It innervates areas of the axilla, lateral chest wall, and aspects of the medial arm (**Figure 1**), and due to its trajectory and close relation to the axillary lymph nodes, is at high risk of injury during axillary lymph node dissection and radical mastectomies [16]. Furthermore, a study by Zhu et al. demonstrated that identification, dissection, and preservation of the ICBN during surgery reduced the incidence of persistent pain and improved quality of life for patients after breast cancer surgery [17]. While this finding has been observed in additional studies [18, 19], it is important to note that while sensitivity was preserved, the incidence of reduced pain was not always obtainable [19].

Along with the ICBN, which is a branch of the T2 intercostal nerve, the T3-T6 intercostal nerves are also at high risk for injury and subsequent intercostal neuralgia. These nerves primarily innervate the skin of the breast, and major branches include the rami communicates, the muscular branches, the collateral branch, the lateral cutaneous branch, and the anterior cutaneous branch [20]. Involvement

#### **Figure 1.**

*Peripheral nerves innervating the breast. \*obtained with permission from Dr. Nelun Wijayasinghe from article [15] . II-VI – intercostal nerves II to VI; ICBN – intercostobrachial nerve; LPN – lateral pectoral nerve; LTN – long thoracic nerve; MPN – medial pectoral nerve; MCN – musculocutaneous nerve; TDN – thoracodorsal nerve;*

of intercostal nerves can present as pain originating at the posterior axillary line radiating anteriorly into the chest wall, in the distribution of the affected intercostal nerve. It is not uncommon to have multiple intercostal nerves involved in the presentation of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery.

Another nerve, albeit less commonly involved, is the medial cutaneous nerve of the arm. This nerve branches from the medial cord of the brachial plexus and can form a connection with the ICBN. Damage to this nerve results in sensory loss to the lower medial skin of the upper arm [14]. Additionally, neuromas can develop within the surgical scar and be a problematic source of persistent pain - scar neuromas are an elusive source of pain after any type of surgical procedure.

### **2.2 Phantom pain**

As with other types of amputations, resection of breast tissue is susceptible to the development of phantom pain and sensations. Ahmed et al. enrolled eighty patients undergoing a modified radical mastectomy and at the one-year mark, 13.6% experienced phantom pain, while 17% experienced phantom sensation. Its lower incidence compared to phantom limb pain may be due to the fact that breasts do not involve kinesthetic sensory impulses in the same manner as limbs do [21]. Likewise, there may simply be a lack of widespread knowledge and education for this condition and thus it may be overlooked in clinical practice. Regardless, while less prevalent than neuropathic pain secondary to nerve injury, its importance may be greater as treatment options are even more limited [22].

### **2.3 Perioperative radiation**

Radiation therapy can also lead to nerve damage, producing persistent peripheral neuropathy. While treatment is targeted, radiation therapy may still cause unavoidable injury to nearby nerves such as the brachial plexus, including proximal and distal branches. The onset and severity of radiation-induced pain can be proportional to the total dose received [23]. A meta-analysis by Wang et al. reviewing thirty studies involving 19,813 patients showed an increased likelihood of PMPS among women who underwent radiotherapy [24]. This is likely secondary to an increased incidence of tissue fibrosis, which can lead to local constriction and compression on nerves and subsequent neural entrapment. Furthermore, lymphedema and impaired glenohumeral motion are other sequelae that can arise after radiation therapy and lead to the formation of persistent pain and morbidity.

## **2.4 Perioperative chemotherapy**

Several commonly used chemotherapy agents such as paclitaxel, vinblastine, and vincristine have all been identified as causing residual neuropathic symptoms [25]. Peripheral neuropathies are the most common presentation with patients experiencing sensations of numbness and tingling usually in a stocking and glove-like formation [25]. Unfortunately, those receiving both radiation and chemotherapy tend to experience enhanced neuropathic symptoms [26]. The mechanism of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy caused by common antineoplastic agents is multifactorial. For platinum-based drugs such as oxaliplatin and cisplatin, activation of glial cells causes nearby immune cells to release pro-inflammatory cytokines, and altered activity in Na+ and K+ ion channels can result in nociceptor sensitization and hyperexcitability of peripheral neurons [27]. Vinca alkaloids also cause the release of pro-inflammatory mediators and influence microtubule polymerization that inhibits axonal transport. This, along with Wallerian degeneration, leads to distal axonopathy [27].

## **3. Risk factors**

PMPS is multifactorial in nature and several risk factors have been evaluated for their association in the development of persistent pain. Risk factors can be categorized broadly into patient demographics, psychological influence, and surgical and anesthetic factors. While an abundance of literature has evaluated risk factors for chronic pain, only some consensus exists. Nonetheless, identifying risk factors and modifying them early in the perioperative period could potentially help in decreasing the risk of persistent pain in high-risk patients.

### **3.1 Patient demographics**

#### *3.1.1 Age*

Younger age has been strongly correlated with a higher pain burden index and relationship of younger age with persistent pain is well supported [28–31]. This finding may be secondary to the fact that younger patients usually present with more aggressive, estrogen-receptor negative disease, or higher tumor grade requiring more radical surgeries or adjuvant therapies [32]. Younger patients also tend to have greater levels of perioperative anxiety and a lower threshold to pain, when compared to older patient groups, thus increasing their overall risk [12]. While younger age has been one of the most consistent factors associated with PMPS, some reviews have not always found this to be the case [33].

## *3.1.2 Body Mass Index (BMI)*

Literature also reports that patients with a higher BMI are more likely to experience persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. A study by Spivey et al. found that both a young age and higher BMI correlated with higher pain scores at the six month follow up [34], and Juhl et al. showed that a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 was significantly associated with persistent pain in both univariate and multivariate models [14]. Surprisingly however, a systematic review and meta-analysis of thirty high-grade observational studies totaling 19,813 patients showed that BMI was not associated with persistent pain [24]. Thus, the correlation may be multifactorial in nature. Surgery in obese patients may be associated with more difficult axillary dissections due to larger breasts, thus placing them at a higher risk for greater tissue and nerve damage. Regardless, as with other surgical disciplines, the risks of perioperative complications such as impaired wound healing and increased blood loss remain higher in patients with a higher BMI [35, 36].

## **3.2 Psychological**

Several studies have shown a significant correlation between high levels of preoperative anxiety [37], catastrophizing symptoms [38], and persistent breast pain following breast cancer surgery [34, 39, 40]. Furthermore, there is also a significant and independent association between PMPS and somatization, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbance, regardless of the surgical or medical treatment a patient received [33]. Furthermore, pain catastrophizing has been found to intensify the experience of both pain and depression [23, 41]. Patients undergoing breast surgery may expect to have severe pain after the procedure, thus increasing their emotional distress and cause them to excessively focus on only negative aspects such as chronic pain. These negative emotions and beliefs may evolve into catastrophic thoughts and irrational patterns of thinking and become self-fulfilling in producing higher pain levels [42]. In contrast, patients who have a more positive mindset going into surgery, and lower levels of emotional distress, are more likely to experiences less acute pain [43] and therefore experience a lower incidence of PMPS [40].

## **3.3 Surgical type**

With the advancement of surgical management, the association between surgical type and chronic pain development seems to vary in the literature. Both breastconserving surgery (BCS), with or without lymph node dissection, and radical mastectomy have not consistently shown a positive relationship in the development of PMPS. A study of 475 patients found that patients who underwent breastconserving surgery were at higher risks of developing moderate to severe chronic pain at rest (OR 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2–3.3) [30]. Some reports however, indicate that more extensive surgery (e.g. radical mastectomies, bilateral procedures, reconstruction) does lead to greater acute postoperative pain, which in turn is a risk factor in developing chronic pain [44]. A prospective, observational study by Spivey et al. with 216 patients, and a systematic review and meta-analysis of thirty observational studies of 19,813 patients by Wang, et al. both did not observe a significant relationship between surgical type and pain at three and six months, respectively [24, 34].

## **3.4 Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND)**

Lymph node dissection can help with the staging and management of breast cancer [45]. Compared to sentinel lymph node biopsy, ALND has been an

associated risk factor with PMPS in several studies [17, 34, 44, 46]. Fabro et al. analyzed ALND on persistent pain, and after controlling for confounding variables they reported that removal of more than fifteen lymph nodes resulted in two times the risk for developing persistent pain [47]. ALND involves more extensive damage to tissues in the axilla, and the intercostobrachial nerve is at most risk during the dissection [48]. As mentioned above, when possible, the ICBN should aim to be preserved during ALND. Abdullah et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial where the ICBN was preserved during ALND and found a decreased incidence of sensory deficits at the three-month follow up. Notably however, preservation could only be obtained in 65% of the patients.

### **3.5 Acute postoperative pain**

Postoperative pain scores in the acute setting have been shown to be a significant risk factor associated with persistent pain across numerous surgical sub-groups, including breast surgeries. Acute surgical injury has been linked to central and peripheral pain sensitization, which can lead to the development of persistent chronic pain [49, 50]. Bruce et al. studied 362 post-mastectomy patients and found that higher levels of postoperative pain increased the odds of developing PMPS at four months (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.12–1.60) and at nine months (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00– 1.37) after surgery [51]. Wang et al. also concluded that for every point on a 10-point scale, the level of postoperative pain severity increased the likelihood of PMPS (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03–1.30) [24]. Extensive surgical reconstruction, axillary lymph node dissection, high levels of anxiety and pain catastrophizing, and presence of preoperative pain all increase the risk of severe acute postoperative pain [34]. Therefore, acute postoperative pain is a worthy indicator for the development of chronic pain [38] and emphasis should be placed on controlling it early in the postoperative course. Improved postoperative pain control is best managed using a multimodal strategy such as through the use of anti-inflammatories, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) inhibitors, interventions such as nerve or fascial plane blocks with local anesthetics, or by addressing preoperative psychological factors such as anxiousness or fear of the postsurgical path.

## **4. Presentation**

There are a number of etiologies that can be responsible for pain after breast cancer surgery. Largely, persistent pain is due to neuropathic causes (**Table 1**) [7, 10], such as from trauma or injury to the intercostobrachial nerve and other local peripheral nerves (medial and lateral pectoral nerve, intercostal nerves, etc), but also due to phantom breast pain, scar neuroma formation, and chemotherapy/radiation induced peripheral neuropathy.

Neuropathic pain due to local peripheral nerve injuries typically present as pain in and around the surgical incision, but due to the peripheral nerve distribution, it can be felt as if it also involves the chest wall, medial arm, axilla, and shoulder [7]. Pain is associated with neuropathic pain features which include burning, paresthesia, tingling, as well as allodynia and hyperalgesia [46, 52]. Pain is also typically associated with sensory changes, such as numbness and hypoesthesia. Furthermore, the incision itself may be a source of spontaneous pain and mechanosensitivity, which may indicate the presence of a scar neuroma, which is more common after a lumpectomy than a mastectomy [53].

Other non-neuropathic etiologies can occur after breast cancer surgery and include musculoskeletal impairments such as rotator cuff dysfunction, adhesive


#### **Table 1.**

*Pain disorders after breast cancer surgery.*

capsulitis of the glenohumeral joint, myofascial pain syndrome of the pectoral or intercostal muscles, and aromatase inhibitor-associated arthralgias (**Table 1**) [7, 10]. Other potential disorders include axillary web syndrome and lymphedema.

When patients present for evaluation of their pain, the first step involves diagnosing the type of pain being experienced. Origin of pain is broadly categorized as either nociceptive or neuropathic [54]. In the acute postoperative phase, pain after breast surgery is likely to be nociceptive in nature resulting from intraoperative injury and subsequent inflammation to tissue, ligaments, or muscles. In order to help diagnose the type of pain, and track its severity over time, routine use of questionnaire-based assessments are commonly implemented. One that is frequently used is the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 (DN4), which consists of two sections – a set of interview questions and examination findings [55]. The yes/no interview questions ask for the presence of burning, painful cold, or electric shocks, and one or more of tingling, pins and needles, numbness, and itching. The second section assesses if the patient experiences hypoesthesia to touch or pinprick, and if brushing provokes the pain. With each point valued at 1, a total score ≥ 4 signifies a 90% probability of neuropathic pain. The questionnaire is quick and reliable, with a sensitivity of 78.0% and specificity of 81.2% [56].

It is important that a thorough history and physical examination is conducted. History will include an evaluation of the patient's preoperative diagnosis and any adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation. Reviewing surgical records will be important to establish what type of procedure was conducted (mastectomy versus lumpectomy), whether axillary lymph nodes were resected, if ICBN nerve sparing surgery was performed, and if implants or expanders were placed. The anesthesia record will also include helpful information on whether perioperative regional anesthetic techniques (i.e., Serratus plane or Pectoralis blocks) or intravenous lidocaine infusions were administered — these techniques are known to be effective on reducing acute pain but also potentially helpful in preventing persistent pain [10, 57].

Physical examination will include a detailed evaluation of the surgical incision and surrounding area, documenting any sensory changes. An evaluation for upper extremity lymphedema and a comprehensive shoulder exam should also be performed.

## **5. Treatments**

Approach to the treatment of persistent pain after breast surgery should be multimodal and include the use of both non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapeutic modalities. The involvement of a multidisciplinary team, including an oncologist, pain management specialist, physiotherapist, psychologist, palliative care specialist, and social worker should be implemented whenever possible. Furthermore, a preoperative comprehensive and patient-tailored pain management plan should be formulated in advance, which includes education on surgery sequelae, the nature and development of their symptoms, and available treatment options.

### **5.1 Non-pharmacological**

Non-pharmacological interventions should always be included in the pain management plan, regardless of whether medications are employed or not. Moreover, patients should be aware that non-pharmacological treatments are only one part of the overall comprehensive treatment plan. Some patients may actually prefer nonpharmacological modalities to pharmacological, to avoid risks of drug side effects or costs [58].

#### *5.1.1 Physical therapy*

The initiation of physical therapy (PT) has repeatedly been shown to be beneficial to patients recovering from breast cancer surgery. Range of motion exercises and active stretching helps to improve upper extremity strength and function, maintain glenohumeral and scapular movement, and allow neuromuscular recruitment with the overall goal of minimizing dysfunction. A systematic review, which evaluated the effectiveness of PT after breast cancer surgery, showed that therapy involving active exercise and stretching was effective in not only improving range of motion but also decreasing postoperative pain [59].

Timing on when to initiate PT has also been studied. Most studies focus on implementing PT early in the postoperative period, with clinical practice guidelines recommending starting gentle range of motion exercises the day after surgery to reduce shoulder dysfunction and pain [60]. Active stretching, followed by strengthening, can then be introduced over the next 6–8 weeks [60]. Several studies however, do report an increase in complications when starting PT too soon after ALND, with Schultz et al. suggesting that a delay of one week can help reduce the incidence of postoperative seromas [61]. Fortunately, patients taking part in early PT after ALND still tend to recover sufficiently by the two-year mark [62].

Besides pain relief, PT has been shown to offer several added benefits to patients after breast surgery. A meta-analysis of 56 studies evaluating the effects of exercise interventions showed significant benefits in fatigue, depression, body image, and health-related quality of life in cancer survivors [63]. As psychological factors play a known role in the incidence of persistent pain [51], long-term benefits can be obtained if practitioners include a PT or exercise course with the hospital discharge plan.

#### *5.1.2 Psychological therapies*

As outlined earlier, psychological factors such as anxiety and catastrophizing play a crucial role in the development of persistent pain. Thus, implementing various psychological interventions into the treatment plan not only helps with

## *Persistent Breast Cancer Pain DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96546*

pain control [64], but also allows patients to effectively cope during this challenging period in their life. Facing a cancer diagnosis, undergoing invasive treatments, and managing treatment sequelae can all add to the emotional suffering breast cancer patients are faced with. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for non-metastatic breast cancer in women was evaluated in twenty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 3940 patients. The study showed that psychological intervention, in particular cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), produced favourable effects on anxiety, depression, and mood disturbance [65]. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has also been examined in breast cancer patients, with a recent meta-analysis by Haller et al. evaluating the effectiveness of MBSR in 1709 patients. MBSR was found to have a significant effect on improving health-related quality of life, fatigue, sleep, stress, anxiety, and depression [66].

Perioperative screening questionnaires evaluating psychological stressors, fears, and overall mood, such as the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) or the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) should be implemented both in the pre- and postoperative phase. From this, at-risk patients can be identified and the involvement of psychological interventions can be applied. Moreover, with the advancement of technology and involvement of virtual care into clinical practice, it now allows for easier access and for group therapies to support even larger number of participants per session.

## **5.2 Pharmacological therapy**

Treatment with oral analgesics provides a non-invasive approach to treating pain, and most patients begin here as they transition from acute to chronic pain. Appropriate medication selection relies heavily on obtaining the correct diagnosis, patient comorbidities, drug side-effect profiles, and at times, cost. Furthermore, we must be cognizant of the chronicity of symptoms and the potential long-term consequences of certain therapies, such as with opioids.

A variety of mediation classes have shown to be effective in neuropathic pain, and these same classes are effective in patients with chronic neuropathic pain after breast cancer surgery. Several guidelines are also available to assist prescribers in selecting the most appropriate medication, and second or third line alternatives, if necessary [67–69]. Various medication choices by class are briefly outlined in this section.

## *5.2.1 Antidepressants*

Treatment of neuropathic pain has benefitted from the analgesic properties provided by well-studied and familiar anti-depressants. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have become common medication choices when treating neuropathic pain [70], albeit usually at lower doses than that needed for anti-depressant effects.

**Tricyclic antidepressants**, such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline, inhibit norepinephrine, serotonin, and adenosine re-uptake at nerve terminals. While not fully understood, the increased concentration of these neurotransmitters plays a role in the analgesic effects [71]. Furthermore, TCAs also have an antagonistic action at the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor [72], which further helps to reduce pain. Doses of TCAs for the treatment of neuropathic pain are much lower than those required for depression [73], and may be the reason that the analgesic properties of TCAs differ from their anti-depressant properties. The effect of amitriptyline was studied in a double-blinded randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial involving 15 patients with PMPS [74]. A statistically significant improvement in pain, effect on

daily life, and improved sleep was seen, particularly at the 100 mg daily dose. Initial starting dose was at 25 mg once daily, and most common adverse effects included tiredness, dry mouth, and constipation. While these effects may not be ideal, prescribing TCAs to be taken at bedtime may benefit patients who also have difficulty with sleep.

**Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors**, including duloxetine and venlafaxine, also work by inhibiting neurotransmitter reuptake, with venlafaxine slightly inhibiting the reuptake of dopamine as well [75]. Both medications have been used to treat neuropathic pain and beneficial effects have been reported in the literature [76]. Tasmuth et al. evaluated venlafaxine in neuropathic pain following breast cancer treatment in patients with pain and sensory disturbances in the anterior chest wall, and/or axilla, and/or the median upper arm. While the study only examined 15 patients, average pain relief and the maximum pain intensity were significantly lower with venlafaxine when compared with placebo [77]. When compared to TCAs, venlafaxine has minimal muscarinic and histaminergic activity, and the effect of the two medications has been comparable in some studies [78]. Furthermore, venlafaxine added to gabapentin has shown enhancement in neuropathic pain relief when the therapies are combined [79].

Along with providing benefit for post-surgical neuropathic pain, both duloxetine and venlafaxine also offer pain relief for patient's suffering from chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy [80, 81], and even decrease motor neuropathy symptoms [82]. Benefits of these two SNRIs has been their ability to target multiple concerns, such as depression, anxiety, musculoskeletal pain, and neuropathy [83] and thus should be strongly considered as an adjuvant when formulating a comprehensive pain management plan.

## *5.2.2 Gabapentinoids*

Gabapentin and pregabalin are common medications used to treat neuropathic pain. While both have structural resemblance to the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) neurotransmitter, neither acts as a GABA agonist. Gabapentin's primary mechanism of action is its high-affinity binding to the α2δ subunit of voltageactivated calcium channels, resulting in a reduction in nerve conduction [84]. A retrospective study of 89 patients with persistent breast cancer pain found a reduction in pain in 80% of patients with an average gabapentin dose of 1135 mg for 14 weeks [85]. Initiating gabapentin at 100-300 mg three times daily, and slowly escalating the dose as tolerated, can provide significant pain relief. While gabapentin continues to be a first line agent for neuropathic pain, certain drawbacks must be considered, such as drowsiness, weight gain, and three times a day dosing.

Pregabalin works similarly to gabapentin by inhibiting voltage-activated calcium channels. It was developed as a successor to gabapentin and has the added benefit of being almost completely absorbed in the body, unlike gabapentin. Thus, with absorption almost three times that of gabapentin, pregabalin reaches peak blood concentrations within one hour after ingestion [86]. Pregabalin has been shown to offer significant decrease in VAS pain scores in patients with PMPS [87, 88], along with significant improvement in quality of life [88].

## *5.2.3 Opioids*

With the general shift away from prescribing narcotics in clinical practice, opioid therapy can still play an important role in pain management when used appropriately. The need for opioid therapy in the acute postoperative period is common and can help decrease nociceptive post-surgical pain. Unfortunately, limited

## *Persistent Breast Cancer Pain DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96546*

data supports the use of opioids for neuropathic pain, especially in the long-term [89, 90]. Nonetheless, for cancer patients with continued pain and functional impairment, a trial of opioids in carefully selected patients can be beneficial. Local and national practice guidelines should be reviewed, risks of adverse effects should always be discussed, and signs of tolerance, abuse, addiction, and diversion should continually be assessed.

One major benefit of opioid therapy is its synergistic effect when combined with other medications. For instance, several studies have demonstrated greater pain relief when using gabapentin and an opioid, compared to opioid monotherapy, in the treatment of neuropathic pain [91–93]. Not only did combination therapy allow for greater reduction in overall pain scores, it also allowed for a decrease in the opioid dose. In turn, this helped to decrease the number of adverse effects that arise with chronic opioid therapy.

## **5.3 Interventional therapy**

## *5.3.1 Nerve blocks*

Several peripheral nerves can be directly targeted for perineural injections with local anesthetics, steroids, or even with neurolytic substances such as phenol or alcohol. Once the problematic nerves have been identified by a thorough history and physical exam, ultrasound guidance can help to visualize the nerves.

The intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) and specific intercostal nerves can be specifically isolated on ultrasound, and medications can be administered under real-time visualization. The ICBN can be identified in the same approach as performing an axillary brachial plexus block - with the shoulder abducted 90° and externally rotated [94]. The ICBN can be seen posterior to the vessels and just deep to the superficial fascia. The medial cutaneous nerve of the arm can also be visualized just anterior to the ICBN [95]. It is important to note that patients experiencing pain in the anterior chest wall may not benefit from an ICBN block.

For chest wall pain, especially pain radiating laterally from the posterior to the anterior chest, intercostal nerve blocks should be considered. Each intercostal nerve branches from the anterior rami of the thoracic spinal nerves and travels on the underside of its corresponding rib [96]. Consecutive intercostal nerves can be blocked simultaneously under ultrasound guidance with the patient lying prone. While the actual nerve may not always be visible on ultrasound, the therapeutic solution can be deposited just inferior to the rib, posterior to the pleura, where the intercostal nerve resides with its corresponding artery and vein. Due to the location, the potential risk of pneumothorax should be explained to the patient, however the use of ultrasound decreases this risk [97].

When the pain is not consistent with a specific nerve, or involves a set of multiple interconnected nerves, various interfascial plane blocks can be an option for pain relief. Due to the complexity of innervation to the breast, the serratus anterior (SA) plane block helps to cover several small nerve branches altogether [98]. This block is approached in a similar manner as individual intercostal nerve blocks, and medication is injected in between the latissimus dorsi muscle and the SA muscle. Branches of the intercostal nerves can be found both above and below the SA [99] and thus some practitioners may choose to deposit additional medication below the SA muscle as well. The ICBN perforates the SA muscle in the mid-axillary line and can be indirectly captured with this plane block as well [10]. Zocca et al. performed the injection on eight patients suffering from PMPS, depositing 0.25% bupivacaine and 40 mg of methyl-prednisolone, and all patients had pain relief ranging from 25% to near complete relief [99].

Other nerve blocks commonly used for patients suffering from pain in the breast region include the thoracic paravertebral block and erector spinae plane block [100]. The true value of these blocks comes mainly in the perioperative period [101, 102]. As mentioned earlier, significant acute postoperative pain is a risk factor for the development of chronic pain. Thus, several studies have shown that the use of these blocks before surgical incision can help decrease the level of acute pain after surgery, and subsequently the prevalence of chronic pain at the six and twelve month follow ups [101, 103]. Furthermore, they have also shown to decrease postoperative opioid use [102, 104].

Regardless of the procedure chosen, the most optimal option should be one that is easy to perform, causes little discomfort to the patient, has reasonable low-risk complications, and allows adequate pain relief.

## *5.3.2 Neuromodulation*

With increasing prevalence in the diagnosis of neuropathic pain, and a shift to decrease use of chronic opioid therapy, the use of neuromodulation has gained significant interest [105]. Both invasive and non-invasive mechanisms of neuromodulation exist and have been used in the treatment of PMPS. A conservative approach to PMPS with neuromodulation is with the use of a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit. TENS has effects on the neurophysiological activities of receptors via the gate theory of pain and can induce the expression of endogenous opioids [106]. EEG changes with use of a TENS unit and decrease in overall pain have been observed particularly in patients with ICBN pain after breast cancer surgery [107]. Due to its low cost, non-invasiveness, and favourable side-effect profile, TENS units have gained attention in treating cancer pain [108].

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) continues to gain growing recognition in the field of pain management due to its less invasive percutaneous approach [109]. PNS allows for direct electrical stimulation of a peripheral nerve to alleviate pain in the distribution of that nerve [110]. This offers targeted therapy and offers pain relief for patients suffering from ICBN or intercostal neuralgia [111]. PNS electrodes can be placed under ultrasound guidance alongside the nerve, avoiding the need for fluoroscopy, and the pulse generator can remain external to the body [112].

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are a better-known type of neuromodulation available for chronic neuropathic pain. Technological advancements in SCS throughout the years, such as high frequency SCS, burst stimulation, and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation, have helped tailor treatment to an individual's pain condition and target specific symptoms [105]. While SCS continues to play a major role in the relief of failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome, new literature has emerged considering SCS for the treatment of PMPS. A case report using DRG stimulation at the T3 nerve roots demonstrated effective pain relief in a patient with severe neuropathic pain [113], and another showed the effectiveness of SCS in treatment of chronic drug-resistant neuropathy in a patient with radiation-induced plexopathy [114]. While these cases are promising, larger studies still need to be conducted in order to evaluate the optimal spinal level for SCS electrode placement and the best neuromodulation programming.

## **6. Conclusion**

Treatment of persistent pain after breast surgery continues to be a challenge and clinical vigilance is needed when caring for this patient population. Neuropathic

## *Persistent Breast Cancer Pain DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96546*

pain features can affect nearly half the number of patients who undergo breast cancer surgery, and failure of diagnosis and treatment can lead to a long-term negative decline in mood, quality of life, and overall functioning. While effective treatments still remain areas of active research, identifying patients at risk allows for the implementation of an early multidisciplinary therapeutic approach. Prospective studies on larger populations of breast cancer survivors continue to be performed, and these will help to fill gaps in knowledge and uncover novel therapeutic measures.

## **Author details**

Sachin Sahni\* and James Khan Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

\*Address all correspondence to: sachin.sahni@uhn.ca

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-E386.

[2] Smith BD, Smith GL, Hurria A, Hortobagyi GN, Buchholz TA. Future of cancer incidence in the United States: burdens upon an aging, changing nation. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(17):2758-2765.

[3] Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2015, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, https://seer. cancer.gov/csr/1975\_2015/, based on November 2017 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2018.

[4] DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Goding Sauer A, Kramer JL, Smith RA, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2015: Convergence of incidence rates between black and white women. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):31-42.

[5] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7-34.

[6] Gärtner R, Jensen MB, Nielsen J, Ewertz M, Kroman N, Kehlet H. Prevalence of and factors associated with persistent pain following breast cancer surgery [published correction appears in JAMA. 2012 Nov 21;308(19):1973]. JAMA. 2009;302(18):1985-1992.

[7] Jung BF, Ahrendt GM, Oaklander AL, Dworkin RH. Neuropathic pain following breast cancer surgery: proposed classification and research update. Pain. 2003;104(1-2):1-13.

[8] Waltho D, Rockwell G. Post-breast surgery pain syndrome: establishing

a consensus for the definition of post-mastectomy pain syndrome to provide a standardized clinical and research approach - a review of the literature and discussion. Can J Surg. 2016;59(5):342-350.

[9] Schug SA, Lavand'homme P, Barke A, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain. Pain. 2019;160(1):45-52.

[10] Khan JS, Ladha KS, Abdallah F, Clarke H. Treating Persistent Pain After Breast Cancer Surgery. Drugs. 2020;80(1):23-31.

[11] Visnjevac O, Matson B. Postmastectomy pain syndrome: An unrecognized annual billion dollar national financial burden. The Journal of Pain. 2013;14(4).

[12] Smith WC, Bourne D, Squair J, Phillips DO, Chambers WA. A retrospective cohort study of post mastectomy pain syndrome. Pain. 1999 Oct;83(1):91-95.

[13] Larsson IM, Ahm Sørensen J, Bille C. The Post-mastectomy Pain Syndrome-A Systematic Review of the Treatment Modalities. Breast J. 2017 May;23(3):338-343. doi: 10.1111/ tbj.12739. Epub 2017 Jan 30.

[14] Juhl AA, Christiansen P, Damsgaard TE. Persistent Pain after Breast Cancer Treatment: A Questionnaire-Based Study on the Prevalence, Associated Treatment Variables, and Pain Type. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(4):447-454.

[15] Wijayasinghe, N., Andersen, K.G. and Kehlet, H., 2014. Neural blockade for persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, 39(4), pp.272-278

*Persistent Breast Cancer Pain DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96546*

[16] Kumar P, Meena RN, Sheikh BA, Belliappa V and Pais AV. Intercostobrachial Nerve - Anatomical Considerations and its Importance in Carcinoma Breast of Female Patients. Ann Surg Perioper Care. 2016; 1(2):1013.

[17] Zhu JJ, Liu XF, Zhang PL, Yang JZ, Wang J, Qin Y, Zhang GL, Ren DQ, Cui CL, Guo XG. Anatomical information for intercostobrachial nerve preservation in axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. Genet Mol Res. 2014 Jan 24;13(4):9315-9323.

[18] Salmon RJ, Ansquer Y, Asselain B. Preservation versus section of intercostal-brachial nerve (IBN) in axillary dissection for breast cancer--a prospective randomized trial. European Journal of Surgical Oncology: the Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. 1998 Jun;24(3):158-161.

[19] Ivanović N, Granić M, Randelović T, et al. Functional effects of preserving the intercostobrachial nerve and the lateral thoracic vein during axillary dissection in breast cancer conservative surgery Vojnosanit Pregl. 2007;64(3):195-198.

[20] Haam S, Kim D, Hwang J, Paik H, Lee D. An anatomical study of the relationship between the sympathetic trunk and intercostal veins of the third and fourth intercostal spaces during thoracoscopy. Clin Anat. 2010;23(6):702-706.

[21] Simmel ML. A study of phantoms after amputation of the breast. Neuropsykologica. 1966;4:331-250.

[22] Ahmed A, Bhatnagar S, Rana SP, Ahmad SM, Joshi S, Mishra S. Prevalence of phantom breast pain and sensation among post-mastectomy patients suffering from breast cancer:

a prospective study. Pain Pract. 2014;14(2):E17-E28.

[23] Habib AS, Kertai MD, Cooter M, Greenup RA, Hwang S. Risk factors for severe acute pain and persistent pain after surgery for breast cancer: a prospective observational study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019;44(2):192-199.

[24] Wang L, Guyatt GH, Kennedy SA, Romerosa B, Kwon HY, Kaushal A, Chang Y, Craigie S, de Almeida CPB, Couban RJ, Parascandalo SR, Izhar Z, Reid S, Khan JS, McGillion M, Busse JW. Predictors of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. CMAJ. 2016 Oct 4;188(14):E352-E361.

[25] Cioroiu C., Weimer L.H. Update on Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2017;17:47.

[26] Johnstone PA, DeLuca AM, Bacher JD, et al. Clinical toxicity of peripheral nerve to intraoperative radiotherapy in a canine model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(4):1031-1034.

[27] Zajączkowska R, Kocot-Kępska M, Leppert W, Wrzosek A, Mika J, Wordliczek J. Mechanisms of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(6):1451.

[28] Macdonald L, Bruce J, Scott NW, Smith WC, Chambers WA. Long-term follow-up of breast cancer survivors with post-mastectomy pain syndrome. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(2):225-230.

[29] Johnstone PA, DeLuca AM, Bacher JD, et al. Clinical toxicity of peripheral nerve to intraoperative radiotherapy in a canine model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(4):1031-1034.

[30] Andersen KG, Duriaud HM, Jensen HE, Kroman N, Kehlet H. Predictive factors for the development of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. Pain. 2015;156(12):2413-2422.

[31] Alves Nogueira Fabro E, Bergmann A, do Amaral E Silva B, et al. Post-mastectomy pain syndrome: incidence and risks. Breast. 2012;21(3):321-325.

[32] Kroman N, Jensen M, Wohlfahrt J, Mouridsen HT, Andersen PK, Melbye M. Factors influencing the effect of age on prognosis in breast cancer: population based study. Br Med J 2000;320:474-479.

[33] Krøner K, Krebs B, Skov J, Jørgensen HS. Immediate and longterm phantom breast syndrome after mastectomy: incidence, clinical characteristics and relationship to pre-mastectomy breast pain. Pain. 1989;36(3):327-334.

[34] Spivey TL, Gutowski ED, Zinboonyahgoon N, et al. Chronic Pain After Breast Surgery: A Prospective, Observational Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2917-2924.

[35] Tjeertes EK, Hoeks SE, Beks SB, Valentijn TM, Hoofwijk AG, Stolker RJ. Obesity--a risk factor for postoperative complications in general surgery? BMC Anesthesiol. 2015;15:155.

[36] Galyfos G, Geropapas GI, Kerasidis S, Sianou A, Sigala F, Filis K. The effect of body mass index on major outcomes after vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2017;65(4):1193-1207.

[37] Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. 2006;367(9522):1618-1625.

[38] Tait RC, Zoberi K, Ferguson M, et al. Persistent Post-Mastectomy

Pain: Risk Factors and Current Approaches to Treatment. J Pain. 2018;19(12):1367-1383.

[39] Belfer I, Schreiber KL, Shaffer JR, et al. Persistent postmastectomy pain in breast cancer survivors: analysis of clinical, demographic, and psychosocial factors. J Pain. 2013;14(10):1185-1195.

[40] Miaskowski C, Cooper B, Paul SM, et al. Identification of patient subgroups and risk factors for persistent breast pain following breast cancer surgery. J Pain. 2012;13(12):1172-1187.

[41] Sullivan MJ, D'Eon JL. Relation between catastrophizing and depression in chronic pain patients. J Abnorm Psychol. 1990;99(3):260-263.

[42] Ellis A, Grieger R. Handbook of Rational Emotive Therapy. New York, NY: Springer Publishing; 1977.

[43] Bruce J, Thornton AJ, Scott NW, Marfizo S, Powell R, Johnston M, Wells M, Heys SD, Thompson AM. Chronic preoperative pain and psychological robustness predict acute postoperative pain outcomes after surgery for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012 Sep 4;107(6):937-946.

[44] Vilholm OJ, Cold S, Rasmussen L, Sindrup SH. The postmastectomy pain syndrome: an epidemiological study on the prevalence of chronic pain after surgery for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(4):604-610.

[45] Petrelli F, Lonati V, Barni S. Axillary dissection compared to sentinel node biopsy for the treatment of pathologically node-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials with long-term follow up. Oncol Rev. 2012;6(2):e20.

[46] Andersen KG, Kehlet H. Persistent pain after breast cancer treatment: a critical review of risk factors and

*Persistent Breast Cancer Pain DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96546*

strategies for prevention. J Pain. 2011;12(7):725-746.

[47] Alves Nogueira Fabro E, Bergmann A, do Amaral E Silva B, et al. Post-mastectomy pain syndrome: incidence and risks. Breast. 2012;21(3):321-325.

[48] Vecht CJ, Van de Brand HJ, Wajer OJ. Post-axillary dissection pain in breast cancer due to a lesion of the intercostobrachial nerve. Pain. 1989 Aug;38(2):171-176.

[49] Gilron I, Vandenkerkhof E, Katz J, Kehlet H, Carley M. Evaluating the Association Between Acute and Chronic Pain After Surgery: Impact of Pain Measurement Methods. Clin J Pain. 2017;33(7):588-594.

[50] Fassoulaki A, Melemeni A, Staikou C, Triga A, Sarantopoulos C. Acute postoperative pain predicts chronic pain and long-term analgesic requirements after breast surgery for cancer. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2008;59(4):241-248.

[51] Bruce J, Thornton AJ, Powell R, et al. Psychological, surgical, and sociodemographic predictors of pain outcomes after breast cancer surgery: a population-based cohort study. Pain. 2014;155(2):232-243.

[52] Peuckmann V, Ekholm O, Rasmussen NK, et al. Chronic pain and other sequelae in long-term breast cancer survivors: nationwide survey in Denmark. Eur J Pain. 2009;13(5):478-485.

[53] Rosso R, Scelsi M, Carnevali L. Granular cell traumatic neuroma: a lesion occurring in mastectomy scars. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(5):709-711.

[54] Merskey H, Bogduk N. Classification of chronic pain: descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms, 2nd ed. Seattle:IASP Press; 1994.

[55] Timmerman H, Steegers MAH, Huygen FJPM, et al. Investigating the validity of the DN4 in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0187961.

[56] Bouhassira D, Attal N, Alchaar H, et al. Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4). Pain. 2005;114(1-2):29-36.

[57] Khan JS, Hodgson N, Choi S, et al. Perioperative Pregabalin and Intraoperative Lidocaine Infusion to Reduce Persistent Neuropathic Pain After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Multicenter, Factorial, Randomized, Controlled Pilot Trial. J Pain. 2019;20(8):980-993.

[58] McCracken LM, Hoskins J, Eccleston C. Concerns about medication and medication use in chronic pain. J Pain. 2006;7:726-734.

[59] De Groef A, Van Kampen M, Dieltjens E, et al. Effectiveness of postoperative physical therapy for upper-limb impairments after breast cancer treatment: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(6):1140-1153.

[60] Harris SR, Schmitz KH, Campbell KL, McNeely ML. Clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer rehabilitation: syntheses of guideline recommendations and qualitative appraisals. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2312-2324.

[61] Schultz I, Barholm M, Gröndal S. Delayed shoulder exercises in reducing seroma frequency after modified radical mastectomy: a prospective randomized study. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4(4):293-297.

[62] Bendz I, Fagevik Olsén M. Evaluation of immediate versus delayed shoulder exercises after breast cancer surgery including lymph node dissection--a randomised controlled trial. Breast. 2002;11(3):241-248.

[63] Duijts SF, Faber MM, Oldenburg HS, van Beurden M, Aaronson NK. Effectiveness of behavioral techniques and physical exercise on psychosocial functioning and healthrelated quality of life in breast cancer patients and survivors--a meta-analysis. Psychooncology. 2011;20(2):115-126.

[64] Veehof MM, Trompetter HR, Bohlmeijer ET, Schreurs KM. Acceptanceand mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a meta-analytic review. Cogn Behav Ther. 2016;45(1):5-31.

[65] Jassim GA, Whitford DL, Hickey A, Carter B. Psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD008729.

[66] Haller H, Winkler MM, Klose P, Dobos G, Kümmel S, Cramer H. Mindfulness-based interventions for women with breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(12):1665-1676.

[67] Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, McNicol E, Baron R, Dworkin RH, Gilron I, Haanpää M, Hansson P, Jensen TS, Kamerman PR, Lund K, Moore A, Raja SN, Rice AS, Rowbotham M, Sena E, Siddall P, Smith BH, Wallace M. Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb;14(2):162-173.

[68] Moulin D, Boulanger A, Clark AJ, et al. Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain: revised consensus statement from the Canadian Pain Society. Pain Res Manag. 2014;19(6):328-335.

[69] Attal N, Cruccu G, Baron R, et al. EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17(9):1113-1e88.

[70] Jackson KC 2nd, St Onge EL. Antidepressant pharmacotherapy: considerations for the pain clinician. Pain Pract. 2003;3(2):135-143.

[71] Yokogawa F, Kiuchi Y, Ishikawa Y, Otsuka N, Masuda Y, Oguchi K, Hosoyamada A. An investigation of monoamine receptors involved in antinociceptive effects of antidepressants. Anesth Analg 2002;95:163-168.

[72] Watanabe Y, Saito H, Abe K. Tricyclic antidepressants block NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic responses and induction of long-term potentiation in rat hippocampal slices. Neuropharmacology. 1993;32(5):479-486.

[73] Glassman AH, Perel JM, Shostak M, Kantor SJ, Fleiss JL. Clinical Implications of Imipramine Plasma Levels for Depressive Illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34(2):197-204.

[74] Eija K, Tiina T, Pertti JN. Amitriptyline effectively relieves neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer. Pain. 1995;64:293-302.

[75] Wellington K, Perry CM. Venlafaxine extended-release: a review of its use in the management of major depression. CNS Drugs. 2001;15(8):643-669.

[76] Jann MW, Slade JH. Antidepressant agents for the treatment of chronic pain and depression. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(11):1571-1587.

[77] Tasmuth T, Härtel B, Kalso E. Venlafaxine in neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer. Eur J Pain. 2002; 6(1):17-24.

*Persistent Breast Cancer Pain DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96546*

[78] Holliday SM, Benfield P. Venlafaxine: a review of its pharmacology and therapeutic potential in depression. Drugs. 1995;49:280-294.

[79] Simpson DA. Gabapentin and venlafaxine for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. J Clin Neuromusc Dis 2001;3:53-62.

[80] Kus T, Aktas G, Alpak G, et al. Efficacy of venlafaxine for the relief of taxane and oxaliplatin-induced acute neurotoxicity: a singlecenter retrospective case-control study. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(5):2085-2091.

[81] Song SY, Ko YB, Kim H, et al. Effect of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for patients with chemotherapy-induced painful peripheral neuropathy: A metaanalysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(1):e18653.

[82] Farshchian N, Alavi A, Heydarheydari S, Moradian N. Comparative study of the effects of venlafaxine and duloxetine on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018 Nov;82(5):787-793.

[83] Fishbain DA, Detke MJ, Wernicke J, Chappell AS, Kajdasz DK. The relationship between antidepressant and analgesic responses: findings from six placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(11):3105-3115.

[84] Sindrup SH, Jensen TS. Pharmacologic treatment of pain in polyneuropathy. Neurology 2000;55:915-920.

[85] e Miguel-Jimeno JM, Forner-Cordero I, Zabalza-Azparren M, Matute-Tobias B. Sindrome de dolor posmastectomia en nuestro medio: caracteristicas, tratamiento

y experiencia con gabapentina [Postmastectomy pain syndrome in our region: characteristics, treatment, and experience with gabapentin]. Rev Neurol. 2016;62(6):258-266.

[86] Bockbrader HN, Wesche D, Miller R, Chapel S, Janiczek N, Burger P. A comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pregabalin and gabapentin. Clin Pharmacokinetics. 2010;49(10):661-669.

[87] Reyad RM, Omran AF, Abbas DN, et al. The Possible Preventive Role of Pregabalin in Postmastectomy Pain Syndrome: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial [published correction appears in J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Jun;57(6):e11]. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019;57(1):1-9.

[88] Kaur N, Kumar A, Saxena AK, Grover RK. Pregabalin in the treatment of postmastectomy chronic pain: Results of an open label, single-arm clinical study. Breast J. 2019;25(3):465-468.

[89] Paice JA, Portenoy R, Lacchetti C, et al. Management of Chronic Pain in Survivors of Adult Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(27):3325-3345.

[90] Arnér S, Meyerson BA. Lack of analgesic effect of opioids on neuropathic and idiopathic forms of pain. Pain. 1988;33(1):11-23.

[91] Keskinbora K, Pekel AF, Aydinli I. Gabapentin and an opioid combination versus opioid alone for the management of neuropathic cancer pain: a randomized open trial. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;34(2):183-189.

[92] Li, Xm., Liu, Dq., Wu, Hy. et al. Controlled-release oxycodone alone or combined with gabapentin for management of malignant neuropathic pain. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2010;22:80-86.

[93] Takahashi H, Shimoyama N. A prospective open-label trial of gabapentin as an adjuvant analgesic with opioids for Japanese patients with neuropathic cancer pain. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010;15(1):46-51.

[94] Kim ED, Baek JW, Kim JS, Oh SA, Kim YH. Ultrasound-Guided Block of the Axillary Nerve: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind Study Comparing Interfascial and Perivascular Injections. Pain Physician. 2019;22(4):369-376.

[95] Loukas M, Hullett J, Louis RG Jr, Holdman S, Holdman D. The gross anatomy of the extrathoracic course of the intercostobrachial nerve. Clin Anat. 2006;19(2):106-111.

[96] Glenesk NL, Rahman S, Lopez PP. Anatomy, Thorax, Intercostal Nerves. [Updated 2020 Jul 27]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan-.

[97] Shanti CM, Carlin AM, Tyburski JG. Incidence of pneumothorax from intercostal nerve block for analgesia in rib fractures. J Trauma. 2001;51(3):536-539.

[98] Blanco R, Parras T, McDonnell JG, Prats-Galino A. Serratus plane block: a novel ultrasound-guided thoracic wall nerve block. Anaesthesia. 2013;68(11):1107-1113.

[99] Zocca JA, Chen GH, Puttanniah VG, Hung JC, Gulati A. Ultrasound-Guided Serratus Plane Block for Treatment of Postmastectomy Pain Syndromes in Breast Cancer Patients: A Case Series. Pain Pract. 2017;17(1):141-146.

[100] Uchida K. Radiofrequency treatment of the thoracic paravertebral nerve combined with glucocorticoid for refractory neuropathic pain following breast cancer surgery. Pain Physician. 2009;12(4):E277-E283.

[101] Kairaluoma PM, Bachmann MS, Rosenberg PH, Pere PJ. Preincisional paravertebral block reduces the prevalence of chronic pain after breast surgery. Anesth Analg. 2006;103(3):703-708.

[102] Piraccini E, Calli M, Taddei S, Maitan S. Erector spinae plane block and rhomboid intercostal block for the treatment of post-mastectomy pain syndrome. Saudi J Anaesth. 2020;14(4):517-519.

[103] Qian B, Fu S, Yao Y, Lin D, Huang L. Preoperative ultrasoundguided multilevel paravertebral blocks reduce the incidence of postmastectomy chronic pain: a double-blind, placebocontrolled randomized trial. J Pain Res. 2019;12:597-603.

[104] El Ghamry MR, Amer AF. Role of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block in pain control after modified radical mastectomy. A prospective randomised trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63(12):1008-1014.

[105] Grider JS, Manchikanti L, Carayannopoulos A, Sharma ML, Balog CC, Harned ME, et al. Effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in chronic spinal pain: a systematic review. Pain Physician. 2016;19:E33–E54.

[106] Robb KA, Newham DJ, Williams JE. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation vs. transcutaneous spinal electroanalgesia for chronic pain associated with breast cancer treatments. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;33(4):410-419.

[107] Silva JG, Santana CG, Inocêncio KR, Orsini M, Machado S, Bergmann A. Electrocortical Analysis of Patients with Intercostobrachial Pain Treated with TENS after Breast Cancer Surgery. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(3):349-353.

*Persistent Breast Cancer Pain DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96546*

[108] Hurlow A, Bennett MI, Robb KA, Johnson MI, Simpson KH, Oxberry SG. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2012(3):CD006276. Published 2012 Mar 14.

[109] Chakravarthy K, Nava A, Christo PJ, Williams K. Review of Recent Advances in Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS). Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2016;20(11):60.

[110] Banks GP, Winfree CJ. Evolving Techniques and Indications in Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Pain. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019;30(2):265-273.

[111] Mainkar O, Solla CA, Chen G, Legler A, Gulati A. Pilot Study in Temporary Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Oncologic Pain. Neuromodulation. 2020;23(6):819-826. doi:10.1111/ner.13139

[112] Gupta S, Clendenen S, Ferreira-Dos-Santos G, Hurdle MF. Ultrasound-Guided Intercostal Peripheral Nerve Stimulator Implantation: Technique Report and Feasibility Study in a Cadaver. Pain Med. 2020;21(Suppl 1): S32-S37.

[113] Morgalla MH. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for the Treatment of Persistent Post-Mastectomy Pain: Case Report. Neuromodulation. 2019;22(1):117-118.

[114] Dorokhov EV, Isagulyan ED, Isaev PA, Semin DY, Polkin VV. Vopr Onkol. 2016;62(4):524-528.

## **Chapter 8**

## Breast Cancer Screening

*Mohammed Tareq Mutar, Mustafa Majid Hameed, Mohammed Saleh Goyani, Aqeel Shakir Mahmood and Abo-Alhasan Hammed Obaid*

## **Abstract**

Breast cancer is a common malignancy worldwide. It is considered top cancer in women and about 13% of women in the general population will develop breast cancer sometimes during their lives, with a gradual increase in incidence as survival increases. Primary prevention of breast cancer is directed toward promoting a healthy lifestyle and reversing modifiable risk factors; these factors include smoking cessation, physical activity, alcohol, and dietary modification. Imaging plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer, it is also considered the most valuable tool in screening breast cancer. Mammogram is the most widely used method; it is recommended by many societies and committees as a useful method for early detection of breast cancer. False-positive and over-diagnosis constitute a problem in using screening mammogram. The implementation of a screening program faces many issues that may adversely affect its success such as personal factors, social factors, and accessibility issues. These issues should be identified as the initial step in program implementation. The role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasound is mainly in high-risk patients. The introduction of Artificial Intelligence in Mammogram may add beneficial effects in time and efforts improving its efforts.

**Keywords:** breast cancer, screening, mammogram, breast self-examination, breast ultrasound

## **1. Introduction**

Breast cancer is a common malignancy worldwide. It is considered top cancer in women and about 13% of women in the general population will sometimes develop breast cancer during their lives, with gradual increase in incidence as survival increases [1]. That is the reason why Breast cancer prevention is the core of many researches and trials worldwide. The World health organization has recommended breast self-examination, mammography as an effective screening tool since 2007. As in conclusion, early detection of breast cancer (secondary prevention) remains the cornerstone for breast cancer control [2].

Educating the population about eliminating modifiable risk factors (e.g. smoking, obesity) remains essential in the primary prevention of breast cancer [3].

#### **1.1 Age**

As a rule of thumb, breast cancer shows an increase in incidence as the age increases, about 8 in 10 cases of breast cancer occurs in women aged 50 or above [4]. However, this may not be applicable for all countries, as a study done by Mutar et al. shows that 45% percent of breast cancer patients were younger than 50 years [5].

The disease is extremely rare before the 20s, and it is as highly prevalent as 20% at age of 80 [6]. It is important to mention that the age may be the only risk factor present in a woman who develops breast cancer [7].

### **1.2 Hormonal factors**

It is proposed that the longer a woman is exposed to cycling reproductive hormones, the higher the risk of breast cancer disease [8].

## *1.2.1 Time of menarche and menopause*

In a large meta-analysis study done in 2012 [9]. An apparent association was found between the early age of menarche and the late age of menopause and breast cancer development, with the first factor being a stronger independent factor for breast cancer development.

In addition to that, these two factors seem to play a more complex role; they favor the development of estrogen-receptor positive disease & lobular histological type of breast cancer.

#### *1.2.2 Parity, breastfeeding and age of having a first child*

Breast cancer is more common in nulliparous women and breastfeeding, in particular, appears to be a protective factor. Also, having the first child at an early age seems to be protective [6].

Increasing parity was associated with a pronounced decrease in the risk of breast cancer, with each extra birth granting about 10 percent reduction of breast cancer risk, and the disease is 13 times more common for each five years increment in the age of having the first child [10].

And just like the effect of menarche & menopause, these factors not merely affect the duration of hormonal exposure but also the hormonal receptor status of breast cancer; for example, breastfeeding is inversely associated with hormone receptor-negative breast cancers and parous women were shown to have a lower risk of estrogen-positive breast cancer [11].

#### *1.2.3 Contraceptive pills*

Current or recent use of oral contraceptive pills increases the relative risk of breast cancer [12].

Post-menopausal hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) was associated with an increased risk for breast cancer [13]. Vaginal estrogens are considered an exception [4].

#### *1.2.4 Obesity*

Breast cancer is more common in obese women [6]. Obesity also affects breast cancer management; obese patients have lower treatment efficacy, more complications and higher recurrence rates [14].

Again, this supports the theory of linking breast cancer to the high estrogen states.

## **1.3 Lifestyle**

## *1.3.1 Physical activity*

A study held among Chinese women showed evidence that physical activity decreases breast cancer incidence; this is maybe due to the proposed effect of exercise on estrogen & insulin [15]. Education about this aspect seems reasonable for breast cancer prevention in high-risk groups.

## *1.3.2 Smoking*

Both passive & active smoking are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer [16].

Also, women who were smoking at the time of their diagnosis have weaker outcomes and poorer survival [17]. However, there are inconclusive results about the smoking risk for the recurrence of the disease.

## *1.3.3 Alcohol*

Just like smoking, it does increase the risk for breast cancer even in light to moderate intake in all ethnicities & with no association to estrogen hormonal status [18].

## *1.3.4 Dietary factors*

Meat, caffeine, high fat diet, Low phytoestrogen all appear to increase the risk of breast cancer, in contrast to increment in vitamin D and calcium levels [6, 19].

## *1.3.5 Others*

Living in stressful life/personality may appear to increase the breast cancer risk [20].

## **1.4 Drugs and radiation**


## **2. Imaging in oncology**

The first imaging modality to be discovered was X-ray by the German physicist Roentgen in 1895, the first use in oncology was to obtain a picture of sarcoma in an amputated leg by German Surgeon Konig. the second imaging modality involved in oncology was ultrasonography, which was used for brain tumors, it Dussik used and called (hyper phonography) [24, 25]. The ultrasonography was then used in bowel, breast and obstetrics.

The history of mammography in breast cancer began in 1913 by Salomon who used it to evaluate 3000 mastectomies specimens [26]. He evaluated the role of radiological assessment correlated with the macrocalcifications and microscopic assessment of breast in order to differentiate between benign and malignant diseases [27].

The use of Xeromammography in 1960s shows improvement in mammogram diagnostic ability, the 1970s and 80s were the time to establish of screening mammography. In 1996 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established guidelines for commercializing digital mammography equipment [27].

Offering a screening mammography started in different times according to each country, for example, Australia had started screening by mammography every 2 years for women aged 50–69 years since 1991, while in Europe it started in 1986 [28, 29].

## **3. Screening**

Screening is applied to many types of cancer, including mainly breast, colorectal, prostate, cervical and lung cancer. Breast cancer screening includes three main types screening mammography, clinical examination and ultrasound [30, 31].

Mammography is the most common screening modality for detecting breast cancers in asymptomatic women. The age and the frequency for screening mammogram is the subject of ongoing debate [32]. There is a considerable disagreement between guidelines regarding the recommendation for the age and frequency this might results from the wide variation in studies as found by Raichand et al. [32]. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials, the relative risk RR of breast cancer mortality for screening compared with controls was 080 (95% CI 073–089), with a 20% relative risk reduction [33].

The starting of 'Europe against Cancer' program in 1986, has led the committee of experts to start systematic population-based screening for cancer that shows decreased mortality with implementation. The effectiveness and benefits of mammography screening have been evaluated in randomized trials that showed decreased mortality by 20–35% in women 50–69 year [34].

If breast cancer is not diagnosed, the screening result is considered false-positive resulting in distress and anxiety among women [35]. The rates of false-positive results depend on many factors including screening interval, single versus double reading, sensitivity of the performance, participation patterns, equipment, and characteristics of the screening population [36]. Women who had false-positive results had a twofold increased risk of a later screen-detected cancer and might cause a reduced likelihood of reattendance [36, 37]. A recent meta-analysis had shown that a previous false-positive test does not influence participation in subsequent screening program [38].

It might better to encourage women with false-positive results to participate in regular screening, as the potential benefit is higher than in women who had negative tests [36].

The elements suggestive of a successful screening program are substantial reduction in cancer-related mortality, good participants' compliance, acceptability among participants, coverage, and high reattendance rate [37, 39].

**Box 1** conditions required for successful mammogram screening.


**Box 1.**

*According to WHO, conditions for successful mammography screening.*

## **3.1 Barriers to participating in mammogram**

## *3.1.1 Personal beliefs*

Fear of a positive result, pain and embarrassment related to the procedure, lack of knowledge about breast cancer and its screening, absence of trust in doctors and hospitals, lack of knowledge regarding mammography and its advantages, perception of being healthy, and fear of radiation exposure.

## *3.1.2 Accessibility and associated factors*

Low-income population and lack of resources and health insurance, cost of mammogram, language barrier for minorities, lack of time required for mammogram, lack of transportation including personal and public transport, registration difficulties, and lower educational level.

## *3.1.3 Social factors*

Lack of medical recommendation and advice regarding mammogram and discouragement from other people.

Other factors that affect participation include Age, Religiosity, family and personal history, and role of responsibility [41, 42].

## **3.2 Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening**

Breast cancer mortality is generally reduced with mammography screening, although the magnitudes of effect are small. Advanced cancer is reduced with screening for women aged 50 years or older [43].

The detection of breast cancer in Australia increased in 2004 and mortality decreased [28]. On the other hand, possible harms of breast cancer screening may be related to false-positive results. According to a study published in 2011, most abnormal mammograms are actually false-positive. Follow-up testing adds additional cost [44].

## **3.3 Breast cancer overdiagnosis**

The effectiveness of screening is mainly dependent on detecting cancer at early stage to promote early detection and better outcome, however, screening yields malignancies that may not have progressed during lifetime [45]. the lead time is the period between detection of cancer at screening and when it might be presented clinically, with stopping screening, the cancer incidence must fall, and at the end of screening time plus lead time, the cumulative incidence of the controlled and the screened populations should be the same. During the screening, some cancer detected might never progress throughout woman's life and might die from another cause before cancer becomes clinically detected. In another word overdiagnosis is defined as "detection of cancers that would never have been found without screening" [46–51] (**Tables 1** and **2**).

## **3.4 Clinical Breast examination (CBE)**

**Benefits:** The current evidence does not support additional benefits and harms of CBE due to lack of evidence. CBE accuracy in the community screening might be lower than in the RCT [53].

## **Harms:**


## **3.5 Breast self-examination (BSE)**

**Benefits:** BSE has been compared with no screening and has been shown to have no benefit in reducing breast cancer mortality [53].

**Harms:** There is solid evidence that formal instruction and encouragement to perform BSE leads to more breast biopsies and more diagnoses of benign breast


#### **Table 1.**

*Risk stratification for breast cancer screening. It is adopted from Yamamuro et al. [47].*


## *Breast Cancer Screening DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97570*



## *Breast Cancer Screening DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97570*


**Table**

**2.**

lesions. The biopsy rate was 1.8% among the study population compared with 1.0% among the control group.

## **3.6 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)**

MRI has the greatest sensitivity of all imaging techniques, and it is considered a problem-solving modality, as a negative breast MRI can exclude malignancy. Only microcalcification seen on mammography cannot be excluded sufficiently by MRI and mammography in such case should be used to judge for biopsy indications. The role of MRI in screening high-risk patients is established, the sensitivity of MRI in high risk patients is between 71 and 100% compared with 16–40% in mammography, while specificity ranges 81–99% for MRI and 93–99% in mammography [54].

The American Cancer Society Guidelines recommends annual breast MRI screening starting from 25 to 30 years in women with a first-degree relative with a BRCA mutation, patients with a BRCA gene mutation, and women with 25% or greater lifetime risk of cancer [55].

European Society of Breast Imaging also advises annual screening with MRI for patients with breast cancer diagnosed under 50 years of age who have a 20% lifetime risk of recurrence and for patients who received radiation to the chest in their second or third decade of life and for patients with inherited syndromes, like Cowden and LiFraumeni syndrome, and their first-degree relatives [54].

Starting Screening at age 40 years may provide some benefits in average-risk populations, but offer higher levels of harm than strategies initiated at age 50 years. The age for cessation of screening can be based on the Comorbidity levels. Biennial screening strategies can be used and considered as the most efficient, but annual screening might be indicated from 40 to 74 years of age in groups with have a 2- to 4-fold higher risk than average [56].

## **3.7 Ultrasound (US)**

Until the early 1990's, breast ultrasound was used primarily to distinguish solid from cystic lesions and image-guided interventions [57]. Ultrasound can be added to mammography in women with dense breasts so that, to increase the sensitivity of detecting the cancer. Ultrasound has relatively good specificity and sensitivity as a follow up tool in women with dense breast and negative mammogram, for that reason, ultrasound can be considered as an adjunct to mammography in screening women with dense breasts [58]. One meta-analysis results suggest the addition of US to mammography of women with dense breasts improves the sensitivity of detecting breast cancer, despite a slightly decreased specificity. Follow-up US also had good diagnostic sensitivity and specificity [59].

Ultrasound, when compared to mammography, is radiation-free, cheaper and less strenuous modality [60].

Using mammography alone for screening has been shown to have poorer diagnostic performance for high-risk women than when used for the general population. For high-risk women, mammography has lower sensitivity and a higher interval cancers rate that might be spread to the lymph nodes. Many factors described in the literature may be responsible for that; like higher breast density, younger age of onset, and increased tumor growth, breast cancer associated with genetic mutation may also be invisible on screening mammography. Supplemental screening with (MRI) significantly improves the detection rate of breast cancer in high-risk populations, compared to mammography alone. Ultrasound may be used instead in patients with a contraindication of MRI due to anxiety or severe claustrophobia, or metallic implants, or patients allergic to the contrast agents [61].

## **3.8 Artificial intelligence in breast screening**

Computer-aided detection software for mammography was intimated in 1990s and since that improvement had been made to improve outcomes. The use of artificial intelligence in screening mammogram has been shown to provide an absolute reduction of 1.2–5.7% in false positives and 2.7–9.4% in false negatives [62]. Artificial intelligence use in screening has the potential advantages of reducing the interval cancer rate without any additional modality, the reduction in interval cancer risk is an important indicator for screening program efficacy [63]. The use of AI in screening requires acceptance to participate and trust in their results, many people as shown by Ongena et al. [64] do not supply the use of AI alone in screening.

## **4. Conclusions**

As breast cancer is among the most common cancer in women, prevention represents an important step to decrease morbidity and mortality. Prevention can be applied on three levels primary, secondary, and tertiary. Screening mammogram has the main advantage of early detection leading to better management and decreased mortality.

## **Acknowledgements**

Authors want to thank their family and friends, particularly Tareq Mutar, Seemaa Albahrani, Zahraa Mutar, Reem Alsaad, Majid Hameed, Akhlass Al-naiemi, Saleh Goyani, Siham Jalal, Hamed Obaid, Fatima Khadem, Batool Ali Ghalib.

## **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## **Notes/thanks/other declarations**

Place any other declarations, such as "Notes", "Thanks", etc. in before the References section. Assign the appropriate heading. Do NOT put your short biography in this section. It will be removed.

## **Author details**

Mohammed Tareq Mutar<sup>1</sup> \*, Mustafa Majid Hameed<sup>1</sup> , Mohammed Saleh Goyani<sup>1</sup> , Aqeel Shakir Mahmood<sup>1</sup> and Abo-Alhasan Hammed Obaid2

1 Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Iraq

2 Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Almustansrya University, Iraq

\*Address all correspondence to: muhammed.tariq64@gmail.com

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2017, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Available at https://seer. cancer.gov/csr/1975\_2017.

[2] Breast cancer prevention and control: Early Detection. Available at: https:// www.who.int/cancer/detection/ breastcancer/en/

[3] Edward R. Sauter. Breast Cancer Prevention: Current Approaches and Future Directions.Eur J Breast Health. 2018 Apr; 14(2): 64–71. doi: 10.5152/ ejbh.2018.3978

[4] National health service (NHS), available at: https://www.nhs.uk/ conditions/breast-cancer/causes/.

[5] Mutar MT, Goyani MS, Had AM, Mahmood AS. Pattern of Presentation of Patients With Breast Cancer in Iraq in 2018: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Nov;5:1-6. doi: 10.1200/ JGO.19.00041. PMID: 31721627; PMCID: PMC6882514.

[6] Bailey and Love's Short Practice of Surgery; 27th edition. N. S. Williams, C. J. K. Bulstrode and P. R. O' Connell. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2018.

[7] Center for disease control,breast cancer risk factors, available at https:// www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/basic\_info/ risk\_factors.htm

[8] Kara Britt, Menarche, menopause, and breast cancer risk The Lancet Oncology, 2012:13(11): 1071-1072 avaipable at :https://www.thelancet. com/journals/lanonc/article/ PIIS1470-2045(12)70456-4/fulltext.

[9] Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer.Menarche, menopause, and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis, including 118 964 women with breast cancer from 117 epidemiological studies. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Nov; 13(11): 1141– 1151. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12) 70425-4

[10] Lambe M, Hsieh CC, Chan HW, Ekbom A, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO. Parity, age at first and last birth, and risk of breast cancer: a population-based study in Sweden. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996;38(3):305-311. doi: 10.1007/ BF01806150. PMID: 8739084.

[11] Fortner, R.T., Sisti, J., Chai, B. et al. Parity, breastfeeding, and breast cancer risk by hormone receptor status and molecular phenotype: results from the Nurses' Health Studies. Breast Cancer Res 21, 40 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s13058-019-1119-y

[12] Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Exogenous hormone use: Oral contraceptives, postmenopausal hormone therapy, and health outcomes in the Nurses' Health Study. American Journal of Public Health 2016; 106(9):1631-1637

[13] Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J. Use of hormone replacement therapy and risk of breast cancer: nested case-control studies using the QResearch and CPRD databases. BMJ. 2020 Oct 28;371:m3873. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3873.

[14] Kyuwan Lee, Laura Kruper, Christina M. Dieli-Conwright, and Joanne E. Mortimer. The Impact of Obesity on Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment. 2019. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019; 21(5): 41. doi: 10.1007/s11912-019- 0787-1

[15] Gao Y, Huang YB, Liu XO, Chen C, Dai HJ, Song FJ, et al. Tea consumption, alcohol drinking and physical activity associations with breast cancer risk among Chinese females: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP. 2013;14(12):7543–50. Epub 2014/01/28

[16] Rosenberg L, Boggs DA, Bethea TN, Wise LA, Adams-Campbell LL, Palmer JR. A prospective study of smoking and breast cancer risk among African-American women. Cancer causes & control : CCC. 2013;24(12):2207–2215. Epub 2013/10/03.

[17] Berube S, Lemieux J, Moore L, Maunsell E, Brisson J. Smoking at time of diagnosis and breast cancer-specific survival: new findings and systematic review with meta-analysis. Breast cancer research : BCR. 2014;16(2):R42. Epub 2014/04/22.

[18] Park SY, Kolonel LN, Lim U, White KK, Henderson BE, Wilkens LR. Alcohol consumption and breast cancer risk among women from five ethnic groups with light to moderate intakes: the Multiethnic Cohort Study. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2014;134(6): 1504–1510. Epub 2013/09/17.

[19] Seyed Hesam Bani Hashemi, Samieh Karimi, and Hamidreza Mahboobi. Lifestyle changes for prevention of breast cancer Electron Physician. 2014 Jul-Sep; 6 (3): 894–905. doi: 10.14661/2014.894-905

[20] Butow PN, Hiller JE, Price MA, Thackway SV, Kricker A, Tennant CC. Epidemiological evidence for a relationship between life events, coping style, and personality factors in the development of breast cancer. Journal of psychosomatic research. 2000;49(3): 169–181. Epub 2000/12/09

[21] Zhao YS, Zhu S, Li XW, Wang F, Hu FL, Li DD, et al. Association between NSAIDs use and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2009;117(1):141–50. Epub 2008/11/04.

[22] Ahern TP, Tamimi RM, Rosner BA, Hankinson SE. Digoxin use and risk of invasive breast cancer: evidence from the Nurses' Health Study and metaanalysis. Breast cancer research and

treatment. 2014;144(2):427–435. Epub 2014/02/28.

[23] Mathur P, Sathishkumar K, Chaturvedi M, Das P , Sudarshan KL, Santhappan S Cancer Statistics, 2020: Report From National Cancer Registry Programme, India. J Glob Oncol. 2020;6: 1063-1075. DOI: 10.1200/GO.20.00122

[24] Shampo, Marc A.; Kyle, Robert A. (1995). Karl Theodore Dussik—Pioneer in Ultrasound. , 70(12), 1136*–.* doi: 10.4065/70.12.1136.

[25] DUSSIK KT, DUSSIK F, WYT L. Auf dem Wege zur Hyperphonographie des Gehirnes [Towards hyperphonography of the brain]. Wien Med Wochenschr. 1947 Oct 4;97 (38-39):425-9. German. PMID: 18911482.

[26] Picard JD. Histoire de la mammographie [History of mammography]. Bull Acad Natl Med. 1998;182(8):1613-20. French. PMID: 10188307.

[27] Kalaf JM. Mammography: a history of success and scientific enthusiasm. *Radiol Bras*. 2014;47(4):VII-VIII. doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2014.47.4e2

[28] Trevena L. Cancer screening Pros, cons, choice, and the patient. Australian Family Physician. 2009;30(4):189. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/19350066/

[29] Biesheuvel C, Weige S, Heindel W. Mammography Screening: Evidence, History and Current Practice in Germany and Other European Countries. Breast Care. 2011;6(2): 104-109.

[30] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC5009951/#\_\_ffn\_ sectitle

[31] Geisel J, Raghu M, Hooley R. The Role of Ultrasound in Breast Cancer

*Breast Cancer Screening DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97570*

Screening: The Case for and Against Ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2018 Feb;39(1):25-34. doi: 10.1053/j. sult.2017.09.006. Epub 2017 Sep 22. PMID: 29317037.

[32] Raichand, S., Dunn, A.G., Ong, MS. et al. Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics. Syst Rev 6, 105 (2017). https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s13643-017-0495-6

[33] The Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380 (9855):1778–1786. doi:10.1016/ S0140-6736(12)61611-0.

[34] Biesheuvel C, Weigel S, Heindel W. Mammography Screening: Evidence, History and Current Practice in Germany and Other European Countries. Breast Care (Basel). 2011;6(2):104-109. doi:10.1159/ 000327493.

[35] Román, M., Hofvind, S., von Euler-Chelpin, M. *et al.* Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts. *Br J Cancer* 2019; 120**,** 269–275 . https://doi. org/10.1038/s41416-018-0358-5

[36] Henderson LM, Hubbard RA, Sprague BL, Zhu W, Kerlikowske K. Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram. *Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev*. 2015;24(12): 1882-1889. doi:10.1158/1055-9965. EPI-15-0623

[37] McCann, J., Stockton, D. & Godward, S. Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer. *Breast Cancer Res* 4**,** R11 (2002). https://doi. org/10.1186/bcr455.

[38] Seigneurin, A., Exbrayat, C., Labarère, J. *et al.* Association of diagnostic work-up with subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program for false-positive cases. *Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;* 127**,** 221–228 #https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010- 1118-2

[39] Lynge E, Olsen AH, Fracheboud J, Patnick J. Reporting of performance indicators of mammography screening in Europe. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2003 Jun; 12(3):213-222. doi: 10.1097/ 00008469-200306000-00008. PMID: 12771560.

[40] World Health Organization. WHO Position Paper on Mammography Screening, 2014. Available at: www. paho.org/cancer

[41] Alexandraki I, Mooradian AD. Barriers related to mammography use for breast cancer screening among minority women. J Natl Med Assoc. 2010 Mar;102(3):206-218. doi: 10.1016/ s0027-9684(15)30527-7. PMID: 20355350.

[42] Orji CC, Kanu C, Adelodun AI, Brown CM. Factors that Influence Mammography Use for Breast Cancer Screening among African American Women. J Natl Med Assoc. 2020 Dec; 112(6):578-592. doi: 10.1016/j. jnma.2020.05.004. Epub 2020 Jul 5. PMID: 32641257.

[43] Nelson H, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016;164(4):244. doi: 10.7326/M15-0969

[44] Fletcher S. Breast Cancer Screening: A 35-Year Perspective. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2011;33(1):165-175. DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxr003

[45] Houssami N. Overdiagnosis of breast cancer in population screening: does it make breast screening worthless?. Cancer Biol Med. 2017;14(1):1-8. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0050

[46] Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. *Br J Cancer*. 2013;108(11): 2205-2240. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.177

[47] Puliti D, Miccinesi G, Paci E. Overdiagnosis in breast cancer: design and methods of estimation in observational studies. Prev Med. 2011 Sep;53(3):131-133. doi: 10.1016/j. ypmed.2011.05.012. Epub 2011 Jun 2. PMID: 21658405.

[48] Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, de Koning H, Lynge E, Zappa M, Paci E; EUROSCREEN Working Group. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:42-56. doi: 10.1258/ jms.2012.012082. PMID: 22972810.

[49] Yamamuro M, Asai Y, Hashimoto N, Yasuda N, Ozaki Y, Ishii K, Lee Y. The effect of breast density on the missed lesion rate in screening digital mammography determined using an adjustable-density breast phantom tailored to Japanese women. PLoS One 2021. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0245060

[50] Ekpo EU, Alakhras M, Brennan P. Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018;19(2): 291-301. Published 2018 Feb 26. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.2.291

[51] Vilaprinyo E, Forné C, Carles M, et al. Cost-effectiveness and harmbenefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e86858. Published 2014 Feb 3. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086858

[52] Siu A. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016;164(4):279.

[53] Breast Cancer Screening (PDQ®)– Health Professional Version [Internet]. National Cancer Institute. 2021 [cited 10 February 2021]. Available from: https:// www.cancer.gov/types/breast/hp/breastscreening-pdq#\_15\_toc

[54] Menezes GL, Knuttel FM, Stehouwer BL, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch MA. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: A literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(2):61-70. doi:10.5306/wjco.v5. i2.61

[55] Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(7):1307-1318. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0863-7

[56] Mandelblatt JS, Stout NK, Schechter CB, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Krapcho M, Trentham-Dietz A, Munoz D, Lee SJ, Berry DA, van Ravesteyn NT, Alagoz O, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Near AM, Hoeffken A, Chang Y, Heijnsdijk EA, Chisholm G, Huang X, Huang H, Ergun MA, Gangnon R, Sprague BL, Plevritis S, Feuer E, de Koning HJ, Cronin KA. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):215-225. doi: 10.7326/M15-1536.

[57] Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:335. Published 2009 Sep 20. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-9-33

[58] Yuan, WH., Hsu, HC., Chen, YY. et al. Supplemental breast

*Breast Cancer Screening DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97570*

cancer-screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 123, 673–688 (2020). https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41416-020-0928-1

[59] Wang J, Zheng S, Ding L, et al. Is Ultrasound an Accurate Alternative for Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening in an Asian Population? A Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;10(11):985. Published 2020 Nov 21. doi:10.3390/diagnostics1011098

[60] Yuan, WH., Hsu, HC., Chen, YY. *et al.* Supplemental breast cancerscreening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer **123,** 673– 688 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41416-020-0928-1

[61] Health Quality Ontario. Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2016;16(15):1-71. Published 2016 Jul 1

[62] McKinney, S.M., Sieniek, M., Godbole, V. et al. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577, 89–94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-019-1799-6

[63] Lång, K., Hofvind, S., Rodríguez-Ruiz, A. et al. Can artificial intelligence reduce the interval cancer rate in mammography screening?. Eur Radiol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00330-021-07686-3

[64] Ongena Y., Yakar D, Haan M., & KweeT. Artificial intelligence in screening mammography: A population survey of women's preferences. *Journal of* the American College of Radiology*. 2021, 18*(1), 79-86. doi:10.1016/j. jacr.2020.09.042

Section 6
