The association between the pre-diagnosis mammography screening interval and advanced breast cancer

Increased breast cancer mortality due to treatment delay and needle biopsy type: a retrospective analysis of SEER-medicare

BACKGROUND

Substantial evidence indicates that delay of first treatment after diagnosis is associated with poorer survival outcomes in breast cancer. Accordingly, the Commission on Cancer introduced a quality measure for receipt of therapeutic surgery within 60 days of diagnostic biopsy for stage I-III breast cancer patients in the non-neoadjuvant setting. It is unknown, however, what may contribute to mortality associated with treatment delay. Therefore, we investigated whether biopsy type moderates the effect of the mortality risk posed by treatment delay.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 31,306 women with stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2013 selected from the SEER-Medicare database was performed to determine whether needle biopsy type [core needle biopsy (CNB) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB)] impacts time to treatment (TTT)-associated survival outcomes. Multivariable Fine-Gray competing risk survival models, adjusted for inverse propensity score weights, were used to determine the association between biopsy type, TTT, and breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM).

RESULTS

TTT ≥ 60 days was associated with 45% higher risk of BCSM (sHR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.24-1.69) compared to those with TTT < 60 days in stage I-III cases. Independent of TTT, CNB was associated with 28% higher risk of BCSM compared to VAB in stage II-III cases (sHR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.36), translating to a 2.7% and 4.0% absolute difference in BCSM at 5 and 10 years, respectively. However, in stage I cases, the BCSM risk was not associated with type of biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that treatment delay ≥ 60 days is independently associated with poorer survival outcomes in breast cancer patients. In stage II-III, CNB is associated with higher BCSM than VAB. However, type of biopsy does not underlie TTT-associated breast cancer mortality risk.

The Association Between Mammography Screening Frequency and Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines for optimal frequency of screening mammography vary by professional society. Sparse evidence exists on the association between screening frequency and breast cancer treatment options. The main objective was to examine differences in cancer treatment rendered for U.S. women with different numbers of screenings prior to breast cancer diagnosis. Cancer stage at diagnosis and health care cost were assessed in secondary analyses.

METHODS

This IRB-exempt retrospective study used administrative claims data to identify women aged 44 or older with various numbers of mammographic screenings ≥11 months apart, during the four years prior to incident breast cancer diagnosis from January 2010 to December 2018. Outcomes were assessed over the six months following diagnosis. Generalized linear regression models were used to compare women with differing numbers of mammograms, adjusting for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Claims data review identified 25 492 women who met inclusion criteria. There was a stepwise improvement in each of these screening categories such that women with four screenings, compared to women with only one screening, experienced higher rates of lumpectomy (70% vs 55%) and radiation therapy (48% vs 36%), lower rates of mastectomy (27% vs 34%) and chemotherapy (28% vs 36%), less stage 3 or 4 cancer at diagnosis (15% vs 29%), and lower health care costs within six months postdiagnosis (P < 0.001). Results were similar in a subgroup limited to women aged 44 to 49 at diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Potential benefits of more frequent screening include less aggressive treatment and lower health care costs among women who develop breast cancer.

Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC)

BACKGROUND

Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status

IMPORTANCE

Screening mammography intervals remain under debate in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the proportion of breast cancers with less vs more favorable prognostic characteristics in women screening annually vs biennially by age, menopausal status, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a study of a prospective cohort from 1996 to 2012 at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. A total of 15,440 women ages 40 to 85 years with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of an annual or within 2 years of a biennial screening mammogram.

EXPOSURES

We updated previous analyses by using narrower intervals for defining annual (11-14 months) and biennial (23-26 months) screening.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

We defined less favorable prognostic characteristics as tumors that were stage IIB or higher, size greater than 15 mm, positive nodes, and any 1 or more of these characteristics. We used log-binomial regression to model the proportion of breast cancers with less favorable characteristics following a biennial vs annual screen by 10-year age groups and by menopausal status and current postmenopausal HT use.

RESULTS

Among 15,440 women with breast cancer, most were 50 years or older (13,182 [85.4%]), white (12,063 [78.1%]), and postmenopausal (9823 [63.6%]). Among 2027 premenopausal women (13.1%), biennial screeners had higher proportions of tumors that were stage IIB or higher (relative risk [RR], 1.28 [95% CI, 1.01-1.63]; P=.04), size greater than 15 mm (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07-1.37]; P=.002), and with any less favorable prognostic characteristic (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00-1.22]; P=.047) compared with annual screeners. Among women currently taking postmenopausal HT, biennial screeners tended to have tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics compared with annual screeners; however, 95% CIs were wide, and differences were not statistically significant (for stage 2B+, RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.89-1.47], P=.29; size>15 mm, RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.98-1.31], P=.09; node positive, RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.98-1.42], P=.09; any less favorable characteristic, RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.25], P=.053). The proportions of tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics were not significantly larger for biennial vs annual screeners among postmenopausal women not taking HT (eg, any characteristic: RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.95-1.12]; P=.45), postmenopausal HT users after subdividing by type of hormone use (eg, any characteristic: estrogen+progestogen users, RR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.91-1.47]; P=.22; estrogen-only users, RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.94-1.37]; P=.18), or any 10-year age group (eg, any characteristic: ages 40-49 years, RR, .1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.14]; P=.48; ages 50-59 years, RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.94-1.12]; P=.58; ages 60-69 years, RR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.97-1.19]; P=.18; ages 70-85 years, RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.94-1.18]; P=.35).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Premenopausal women diagnosed as having breast cancer following biennial vs annual screening mammography are more likely to have tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics. Postmenopausal women not using HT who are diagnosed as having breast cancer following a biennial or annual screen have similar proportions of tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics.

Mammography interval and breast cancer mortality in women over the age of 75

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between mammography interval and breast cancer mortality among older women with breast cancer. The study population included 1,914 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 75 or later during their participation in the Women's health initiative, with an average follow-up of 4.4 years (3.1 SD). Cause of death was based on medical record review. Mammography interval was defined as the time between the last self-reported mammogram 7 or more months prior to diagnosis, and the date of diagnosis. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality were computed from Cox proportional hazards analyses. Prior mammograms were reported by 73.0 % of women from 7 months to ≤2 year of diagnosis (referent group), 19.4 % (>2 to <5 years), and 7.5 % (≥5 years or no prior mammogram). Women with the longest versus shortest intervals had more poorly differentiated (28.5 % vs. 22.7 %), advanced stage (25.7 % vs. 22.9 %), and estrogen receptor negative tumors (20.9 % vs. 13.1 %). Compared to the referent group, women with intervals of >2 to <5 years or ≥5 years had an increased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR 1.62, 95 % CI 1.03-2.54) and (HR 2.80, 95 % CI 1.57-5.00), respectively, p trend = 0.0002. There was no significant relationship between mammography interval and other causes of death. These results suggest a continued role for screening mammography among women 75 years of age and older.

Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. The disease remains a public health concern as recent evidence indicates that the breast cancer burden has increased mainly in developing and low-income countries (DLICs). Despite the demonstrated benefits, the debate about the real benefits and harms of breast cancer screening is ongoing. Many experts believe that the benefits of screening, in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality, outweigh the harms, whereas others think the opposite. In this review, we assess the clinical utility of available screening modalities, present evidence, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, and other pertinent issues. We also examine relevant data from DLICs to underscore the barriers and challenges that impede implementation of screening strategies in those populations. We also provide recommendations concerning rational preventive strategies for breast cancer control for women in DLICs.

Serious health events and discontinuation of routine cancer screening

Recently revised US Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines for colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer contain separate recommendations for persons younger than 75 years and those 75 years or older. Developing an understanding of whether and how patients discontinue screening is important for evaluating the potential benefits and drawbacks of age-delimited screening recommendations as a tool for reducing overdiagnosis rates. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End

RESULTS

-Medicare data from 1998 to 2007, the authors identified a sample of 32,189 female and 27,669 male fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who received 2 consecutive breast or prostate screens, 1 year apart. They then estimated the impact of serious health events, such as heart attacks and strokes, on continuation of screening. Rescreening rates among beneficiaries who did not experience a serious health event were 78% for women and 82% for men. Rescreening rates among beneficiaries who experienced a serious health event were 55% for women and 57% for men. The rate ratios associated with a time-varying indicator for the 2-year period following a serious health event were 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 0.81); P < 0.001) for women and 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 0.89; P < 0.001) for men. Approximately one-third of patients and physicians discontinue or temporarily suspend screening for breast and prostate cancer following serious health events. Findings suggest that not all patients persist with screening until they die.

Malpractice claims following screening mammography in The Netherlands

Although malpractice lawsuits are frequently related to a delayed breast cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients, information on claims at European screening mammography programs is lacking. We determined the type and frequency of malpractice claims at a Dutch breast cancer screening region. We included all 85,274 women (351,009 screens) who underwent biennial screening mammography at a southern breast screening region in The Netherlands between 1997 and 2009. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening mammograms of all screen detected cancers and interval cancers and determined whether the cancer had been missed at the previous screen or at the latest screen, respectively. We analyzed all correspondence between the screening organization, clinicians and screened women, and collected complaints and claims until September 2011. At review, 20.9% (308/1,475) of screen detected cancers and 24.3% (163/670) of interval cancers were considered to be missed at a previous screen. A total of 19 women (of which 2, 6 and 11 women had been screened between 1997 and 2001 (102,439 screens), 2001 and 2005 (114,740 screens) and 2005 and 2009 (133,830 screens), respectively) had contacted the screening organization for additional information about their screen detected cancer or interval cancer, but filed no claim. Three other women directly initiated an insurance claim for financial compensation of their interval cancer without previously having contacted the screening organization. We conclude that screening-related claims were rarely encountered, although many screen detected cancers and interval cancers had been missed at a previous screen. A small but increasing proportion of women sought additional information about their breast cancer from the screening organization.

Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study

Introduction

The aims of this study were to determine trends in the incidence of advanced breast cancer at screening mammography and the potential of screening to reduce it.

Methods

We included a consecutive series of 351,009 screening mammograms of 85,274 women aged 50-75 years, who underwent biennial screening at a Dutch breast screening region in the period 1997-2008. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening mammograms of all advanced screen detected and advanced interval cancers and determined whether the advanced cancer (tumor > 20 mm and/or lymph node positive tumor) had been visible at a previous screen. Interval cancers were breast cancers diagnosed in women after a negative screening examination (defined as no recommendation for referral) and before any subsequent screen. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared between women with advanced cancer and women with non-advanced cancer, including ductal carcinoma in situ.

Results

A total of 1,771 screen detected cancers and 669 interval cancers were diagnosed in 2,440 women. Rates of advanced cancer remained stable over the 12-year period; the incidence of advanced screen-detected cancers fluctuated between 1.5 - 1.9 per 1,000 screened women (mean 1.6 per 1,000) and of advanced interval cancers between 0.8 - 1.6 per 1,000 screened women (mean 1.2 per 1,000). Of the 570 advanced screen-detected cancers, 106 (18.6%) were detected at initial screening; 265 (46.5%) cancers detected at subsequent screening had been radiologically occult at the previous screening mammogram, 88 (15.4%) had shown a minimal sign, and 111 (19.5%) had been missed. Corresponding figures for advanced interval cancers were 50.9% (216/424), 24.3% (103/424) and 25.1% (105/424), respectively. At multivariate analysis, women with a ≥ 30 months interval between the latest two screens had an increased risk of screen-detected advanced breast cancer (OR 1.63, 95%CI: 1.07-2.48) and hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of advanced disease among interval cancers (OR 3.04, 95%CI: 1.22-7.53).

Conclusion

We observed no decline in the risk of advanced breast cancer during 12 years of biennial screening mammography. The majority of these cancers could not have been prevented through earlier detection at screening.

A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries

The objective of this study was to assess detection rates and interval breast cancer (IC) rates from eight programmes in the European Breast Cancer Screening Network. A common data collection protocol was used to explore differences in IC rates among programmes and discuss their potential determinants. Pooled analysis was used to describe IC rates by age, compliance in screening, recall rate, screening detection (SD) rate and expected breast cancer incidence. Participation in screening averaged 77.9% (range 42.6-88.7%), recall rate 5.4% (range 3.3-17.7%) in the initial and 3.4% (range 1.8-8.9%) in the subsequent screening rounds, and SD rate was 60.4 (range 41.6-91) per 10 000 women in initial and 38.5 (range 31.3-62.6) in subsequent screens. IC rate during first 12 months after screening was 5.9 (range 2.1-7.3) per 10 000 women screened negative and 12.6 (range 6.3-15) in the second year of the interval. IC comprised 28% of the IC and SD cancers. The ratio between IC rate and expected incidence was 0.29 for the first 12 months and 0.63 for the 13-24 months period. Sensitivity was higher for the ages 60-69 years and for initial tests than subsequent tests. There were distinct differences in the IC rates between programmes. The results of this study reveal large variations in screening sensitivity and performance. Pooled evaluation of some process indicators within the European breast cancer screening programmes proved to be feasible and is likely to be useful for the future, particularly if it is performed regularly and extensively.

Annual or biennial mammography screening for women at a higher risk with a family history of breast cancer: prognostic indicators of screen-detected cancers in New South Wales, Australia

OBJECTIVE

This study examined whether offering annual mammography screening for women with the risk factor of a family history of breast cancer resulted in more favorable prognostic indicators of diagnosed cancers than the usual approach of biennial screening.

METHODS

The study involved women aged 50-69 years with a family history of breast cancer, defined as having > or = 1 first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer, who were diagnosed with a screen-detected invasive breast cancer between 1998 and 2004 in BreastScreen New South Wales (n = 590). The women were grouped according to whether they screened in an area offering annual screening to women with a family history, or were offered the standard biennial screening. The odds of having favorable tumor size, grade, and nodal status prognosis were compared between these screening groups using logistic regression. A comparison group of women without a family history, all offered biennial screening, was also evaluated based on the same area groupings to examine whether any differences were due to the area, rather than the screening interval policy.

RESULTS

Women with a family history who were offered annual screening at BreastScreen NSW were significantly more likely than those who were offered biennial screening to be diagnosed with a tumor < or = 20 mm in size (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.21-3.02), and to have a node-negative tumor (AOR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.03-2.50). There were also significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with tumors < or = 15 mm (p < 0.001) and < or = 10 mm in size (p = 0.011) in women offered annual screening. There was no significant difference in the odds of a Grade 1 tumor being detected (AOR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.87-1.81), although the direction of the effect was consistent with that seen for size and nodal status. No significant differences were found in the comparison group of women without a family history.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering annual screening for women aged 50-69 years with a family history of breast cancer significantly increased the odds of being diagnosed with a smaller, node-negative tumors. Further investigation is required to assess whether the improved prognostic indicators translate into significantly better mortality outcomes for women with a family history offered annually screening.