MRI screening for breast cancer in women at high risk; is the Australian breast MRI screening access program addressing the needs of women at high risk of breast cancer?

Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer

Breast radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists updated their previous recommendation/guidance at the 4th Hungarian Breast Cancer Consensus Conference in Kecskemét. A recommendation is hereby made that breast tumours should be screened, diagnosed and treated according to these guidelines. These professional guidelines include the latest technical developments and research findings, including the role of imaging methods in therapy and follow-up. It includes details on domestic development proposals and also addresses related areas (forensic medicine, media, regulations, reimbursement). The entire material has been agreed with the related medical disciplines.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance Among BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Systematic Review

Background

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are suggested with regular breast cancer surveillance screening strategies using mammography with supplementary MRI as an adjunct tool in Western countries. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, however, the benefits of screening modalities remain controversial among different mutated genes and screening schedules.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to collect and compare the results of different cost-effectiveness analyses. A simulated model was used to predict the impact of screening strategies in the target group on cost, life-year gained, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Nine cost-effectiveness studies were included. Combined mammography and MRI strategy is cost-effective in BRCA1 mutation carriers for the middle-aged group (age 35 to 54). BRCA2 mutation carriers are less likely to benefit from adjunct MRI screening, which implies that mammography alone would be sufficient from a cost-effectiveness perspective, regardless of dense breast cancer.

Conclusions

Precision screening strategies among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers should be conducted according to the acceptable ICER, i.e., a combination of mammography and MRI for BRCA1 mutation carriers and mammography alone for BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020205471.

The Value of Tyrer-Cuzick Versus Gail Risk Modeling in Predicting Benefit from Screening MRI in Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in US women. Risk assessment tools such as the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) models calculate risk for breast cancer based on modifiable and non-modifiable factors in order to guide screening and prevention for high-risk patients. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to mammography is recommended in high-risk patients (>20% lifetime risk on TC or other familial based models). Currently, no published data indicate these recommendations improve cancer detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With the aim to determine what percentage lifetime risk (LR%) is associated with a statistically significant increase in cancer detection, the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) breast imaging database was reviewed to identify patients who received screening MRI.

RESULTS

The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for the Gail and TC models and the rate of cancer detection correlated to 20% LR% were calculated. The Gail model was considered the control model as it is NOT considered a validated screening tool for MRI. TC is not more accurate than Gail when predicting benefit of breast MRI screening. (area under the curve (AUC): 0.6841, 0.6543 respectively, p = 0.828). Univariate analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between the Gail or TC LR % and diagnosis of breast cancer when using 20% as the cutoff for high-risk classification (p = 1.0, 0.369 respectively). Neither the TC nor the Gail risk calculators demonstrated a significant correlation between risk and the likelihood of diagnosis of breast cancer when screened with MRI.

CONCLUSION

Larger cohort studies are necessary to determine the risk percentage most predictive of a breast cancer diagnosis using MRI as screening.

Radiation-associated breast cancers in a late-effects cohort: Long-term surveillance is essential

AIMS

Survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adulthood malignancies have an increased risk of subsequent primary malignancies, particularly after exposure to therapeutic radiation. This study aims to evaluate the mode of surveillance and surveillance compliance, incidence and mode of detection of breast cancer, breast cancer phenotype, and outcomes after radiation-associated breast cancer (RBC) in a late-effects cohort.

METHODS

Women exposed to therapeutic radiation attending the late effects service from 1st January 2000 to 20th February 2013. All invasive and in-situ cancers, benign tumors, and deaths were evaluated. The incidence of breast cancer was compared to the Australian general population. Compliance with breast surveillance recommendations, clinicopathological features, and management of breast cancers were examined.

RESULTS

The prevalence of RBC was 17.1%. Twenty-eight cases of RBC occurred in 24 women, out of 140 women exposed to chest radiation. Patients whose first attendance was ≥15 years after radiation exposure experienced the highest incidence of RBC at 23%. The incidence of breast cancer was 11.2 times the general population (P < .001). Compliance with surveillance mammography was observed in 18.4%. Breast cancers diagnosed after the first attendance to the service were more likely screen-detected (P = .002). Most were hormone receptor positive (84.0%), invasive ductal carcinomas (82.1%), and managed with mastectomy (89.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients attending a dedicated late effects service have a high burden of subsequent malignancies generally occurring after long latency. Judicious management with adherence to long-term surveillance guidelines is advocated.

Outcomes of women at high familial risk for breast cancer: An 8-year single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

The value of a high-risk surveillance program for mutation carriers and women at high familial breast cancer risk has not been extensively studied. A Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Management Clinic (BOCRMC) was established at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in 2010 to provide multimodality screening and risk management strategies for this group of women. The aims of this study were to evaluate the program and describe breast cancer diagnoses for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other germline mutation carriers as well as high-risk noncarriers attending the BOCRMC.

METHODS

Clinical data from mutation carriers and noncarriers with a ≥25% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer who attended between 2010 and 2018 were extracted from clinic records and compared. The pattern and mode of detection of cancer were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 206 mutation carriers and 305 noncarriers attended the BOCRMC and underwent screening on at least one occasion. Median age was 37 years. After a median follow-up of 34 months, 15 (seven invasive) breast cancers were identified in mutation carriers, with seven (six invasive) breast cancers identified in noncarriers. Of these, 20 (90.9%) were detected by annual screening, whereas two (9.1%) were detected as interval cancers (both in BRCA1 mutation carriers). Median size of the invasive breast cancers was 11 mm (range: 1.5-30 mm). The majority (76.9%) were axillary node negative. In women aged 25-49 years, the annualized cancer incidence was 1.6% in BRCA1, 1.4% in BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 0.5% in noncarriers. This compares to 0.06% annualized cancer incidence in the general Australian population.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening was effective at detecting early-stage cancers. The incidence of events in young noncarriers was substantially higher than in the general population. This potentially justifies ongoing management through a specialty clinic, although further research to better personalize risk assessment in noncarriers is required.

Mammography screening: A major issue in medicine

Breast cancer mortality is declining in most high-income countries. The role of mammography screening in these declines is much debated. Screening impacts cancer mortality through decreasing the incidence of number of advanced cancers with poor prognosis, while therapies and patient management impact cancer mortality through decreasing the fatality of cancers. The effectiveness of cancer screening is the ability of a screening method to curb the incidence of advanced cancers in populations. Methods for evaluating cancer screening effectiveness are based on the monitoring of age-adjusted incidence rates of advanced cancers that should decrease after the introduction of screening. Likewise, cancer-specific mortality rates should decline more rapidly in areas with screening than in areas without or with lower levels of screening but where patient management is similar. These two criteria have provided evidence that screening for colorectal and cervical cancer contributes to decreasing the mortality associated with these two cancers. In contrast, screening for neuroblastoma in children was discontinued in the early 2000s because these two criteria were not met. In addition, overdiagnosis - i.e. the detection of non-progressing occult neuroblastoma that would not have been life-threatening during the subject's lifetime - is a major undesirable consequence of screening. Accumulating epidemiological data show that in populations where mammography screening has been widespread for a long time, there has been no or only a modest decline in the incidence of advanced cancers, including that of de novo metastatic (stage IV) cancers at diagnosis. Moreover, breast cancer mortality reductions are similar in areas with early introduction and high penetration of screening and in areas with late introduction and low penetration of screening. Overdiagnosis is commonplace, representing 20% or more of all breast cancers among women invited to screening and 30-50% of screen-detected cancers. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment and inflicts considerable physical, psychological and economic harm on many women. Overdiagnosis has also exerted considerable disruptive effects on the interpretation of clinical outcomes expressed in percentages (instead of rates) or as overall survival (instead of mortality rates or stage-specific survival). Rates of radical mastectomies have not decreased following the introduction of screening and keep rising in some countries (e.g. the United States of America (USA)). Hence, the epidemiological picture of mammography screening closely resembles that of screening for neuroblastoma. Reappraisals of Swedish mammography trials demonstrate that the design and statistical analysis of these trials were different from those of all trials on screening for cancers other than breast cancer. We found compelling indications that these trials overestimated reductions in breast cancer mortality associated with screening, in part because of the statistical analyses themselves, in part because of improved therapies and underreporting of breast cancer as the underlying cause of death in screening groups. In this regard, Swedish trials should publish the stage-specific breast cancer mortality rates for the screening and control groups separately. Results of the Greater New York Health Insurance Plan trial are biased because of the underreporting of breast cancer cases and deaths that occurred in women who did not participate in screening. After 17 years of follow-up, the United Kingdom (UK) Age Trial showed no benefit from mammography screening starting at age 39-41. Until around 2005, most proponents of breast screening backed the monitoring of changes in advanced cancer incidence and comparative studies on breast cancer mortality for the evaluation of breast screening effectiveness. However, in an attempt to mitigate the contradictions between results of mammography trials and population data, breast-screening proponents have elected to change the criteria for the evaluation of cancer screening effectiveness, giving precedence to incidence-based mortality (IBM) and case-control studies. But practically all IBM studies on mammography screening have a strong ecological component in their design. The two IBM studies done in Norway that meet all methodological requirements do not document significant reductions in breast cancer mortality associated with mammography screening. Because of their propensity to exaggerate the health benefits of screening, case-control studies may demonstrate that mammography screening could reduce the risk of death from diseases other than breast cancer. Numerous statistical model approaches have been conducted for estimating the contributions of screening and of patient management to reductions in breast cancer mortality. Unverified assumptions are needed for running these models. For instance, many models assume that if screening had not occurred, the majority of screen-detected asymptomatic cancers would have progressed to symptomatic advanced cancers. This assumption is not grounded in evidence because a large proportion of screen-detected breast cancers represent overdiagnosis and hence non-progressing tumours. The accumulation of population data in well-screened populations diminishes the relevance of model approaches. The comparison of the performance of different screening modalities - e.g. mammography, digital mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), three-dimensional tomosynthesis (TDT) - concentrates on detection rates, which is the ability of a technique to detect more cancers than other techniques. However, a greater detection rate tells little about the capacity to prevent interval and advanced cancers and could just reflect additional overdiagnosis. Studies based on the incidence of advanced cancers and on the evaluation of overdiagnosis should be conducted before marketing new breast-imaging technologies. Women at high risk of breast cancer (i.e. 30% lifetime risk and more), such as women with BRCA1/2 mutations, require a close breast surveillance. MRI is the preferred imaging method until more radical risk-reduction options are eventually adopted. For women with an intermediate risk of breast cancer (i.e. 10-29% lifetime risk), including women with extremely dense breast at mammography, there is no evidence that more frequent mammography screening or screening with other modalities actually reduces the risk of breast cancer death. A plethora of epidemiological data shows that, since 1985, progress in the management of breast cancer patients has led to marked reductions in stage-specific breast cancer mortality, even for patients with disseminated disease (i.e. stage IV cancer) at diagnosis. In contrast, the epidemiological data point to a marginal contribution of mammography screening in the decline in breast cancer mortality. Moreover, the more effective the treatments, the less favourable are the harm-benefit balance of screening mammography. New, effective methods for breast screening are needed, as well as research on risk-based screening strategies.