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

BreastScreen Australia national data by factors of interest for risk-based screening: routinely reported data and opportunities for enhancement

OBJECTIVE

There is growing interest in more risk-based approaches to breast cancer screening in Australia. This would require more detailed reporting of BreastScreen data for factors of interest in the assessment and monitoring of risk-based screening. This review assesses the current and potential availability and reporting of BreastScreen data for this purpose.

METHODS

We systematically searched governmental BreastScreen reports and peer-reviewed literature to assess current and potential availability of outcomes for predetermined factors including breast cancer risk factors and factors important for implementing, monitoring or evaluating risk-based screening. Outcomes evaluated were BreastScreen Performance Indicators routinely included in BreastScreen Australia monitoring reports, and key tumour characteristics.

RESULTS

All outcomes were reported annually by age group, except for tumour hormone receptor status, nodal involvement and grade. Screening participation was reported nationally for many factors important for risk-based screening; other reporting was ad hoc or unavailable.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potential to build on BreastScreen's existing high-quality national data collection and reporting systems to inform and support risk-based breast screening. Implications for public health: Enhanced BreastScreen data collection and reporting would improve the evidence base and support evaluation of risk-based screening and improve the detail available for benchmarking any future changes to the program.

Annual Mammographic Screening Reduces the Risk of Interval or Higher Stage Invasive Breast Cancers Among Postmenopausal Women in the Ontario Breast Screening Program

Purpose: In the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) annual screening improved breast cancer detection for women 50–74 years with a family/personal history compared to biennial, while detection was equivalent for women screened annually for mammographic density ≥75%. This study compares the risk of interval or higher stage invasive cancers among postmenopausal women screened annually vs biennially by age and estrogen use. Methods: A retrospective design identified 4247 invasive breast cancers diagnosed among concurrent cohorts of women 50–74 screened in the OBSP with digital mammography between 2011 and 2014, followed until 2016. Polytomous logistic regression estimated the risk of interval or higher stage breast cancers by age and estrogen use between women screened annually because of first-degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer, or mammographic density ≥75%, and those screened biennially. Results: The risk of interval vs screen-detected cancers was significantly reduced in women screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.64; 95%CI:0.51–.80), particularly those 60–74 years (OR=.59; 95%CI:0.45–.77) or not currently using estrogen (OR=.66; 95%CI:0.52–.83) compared to those screened biennially. The risk of stage II–IV vs stage I tumors was also lower in women 60–74 years screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.79; 95%CI:0.64–.97) and in those screened annually for mammographic density ≥75% currently using estrogen (OR=.51; 95%CI:0.26–1.01) compared to women screened biennially. Conclusion: Postmenopausal women at increased risk screened annually had equivalent or reduced risks of interval or higher stage invasive breast cancers than those screened biennially, further supporting risk-based screening in this population.

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging

Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely.

Residential area and screening venue location features associated with spatial variation in breast cancer screening invitation response rates: an observational study in Greater Sydney, Australia

OBJECTIVES

Participation in breast cancer screening (BCS) varies at the small-area level, which may reflect environmental influences. This study assessed small-area variation in BCS invitation response rates (IRRs) and associations between small-area BCS IRR, sociodemographic factors, BCS venue distance and venue location features in Greater Sydney, Australia.

METHODS

BCS IRR data for 2011-2012 were compiled for 9528 Australian Bureau of Statistics Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) units (n=227 474 women). A geographial information system was used to extract SA1-level sociodemographic features (proportions of women speaking English at home, full-time employed and university educated, and proportion of dwellings with motor vehicles), SA1-level distance to closest venue(s) (expressed as quartiles), and closest venue(s) colocated with bus stops, train station, hospital, general practitioner and shops. Associations between area-level features, BCS venue distance, venue location features and IRR were estimated using ordinary least square-type spatial lag models including area education as a covariate.

RESULTS

BCS IRR varied across SA1s (mean=59.8%, range: 0%-100%), with notable spatial autocorrelation (Moran's I=0.803). BCS IRR was positively associated with greater SA1-level proportion of women speaking English at home (β=2.283, 95% CI 2.024 to 2.543), women's education (in the model including speaking English at home β=0.454, 95% CI 0.211 to 0.697), dwellings with motor vehicles (β=1.836, 95% CI 1.594 to 2.078), greater distance to venue (eg, most distant quartile compared with closest: β=6.249, 95% CI 5.489 to 7.008), and BCS venue colocated with shops (β=0.762, 95% CI 0.273 to 1.251). Greater SA1-level women employment (β=-0.613, 95% CI -0.898 to -0.328) and venue colocated with train station (β=-1.889, 95% CI -2.376 to -1.402) or hospital (β=-0.677, 95% CI -1.164 to -0.189) were inversely related to BCS IRR.

CONCLUSIONS

Small-area variation in BCS IRR exists for Greater Sydney and is strongly related to sociodemographic factors that, together with BCS venue location features, could inform targeted attempts to improve IRR.

Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program

BACKGROUND

The Ontario Breast Screening Program recommends annual mammography to women age 50-74 years at increased risk because of family history of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer or mammographic density 75% or greater. Few studies have examined the diagnostic accuracy of recommendations based on risk factors and included screen film as well as digital mammography.

METHODS

A retrospective design identified concurrent cohorts of women age 50-74 years screened annually or biennially with digital mammography only between 2011 and 2014 and followed until 2016 or breast cancer diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy measures were compared between women screened annually because of first-degree relative of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer (n = 67 795 women), mammographic density 75% or greater (n = 51 956), or both (n = 3758) and those screened biennially (n = 526 815). The association between recommendation and sensitivity and specificity was assessed using generalized estimating equation models. All P values are two-sided.

RESULTS

For annual screening because of family or personal history vs biennial, sensitivity was statistically significantly higher (81.7% vs 70.6%; OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.48 to 2.34), particularly for invasive cancers and postmenopausal women. Although there was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity for annual screening for mammographic density 75% or greater, specificity was statistically significantly lower (91.3%; OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.96) vs biennial (92.3%), particularly for women age 50-59 years.

CONCLUSION

Compared with biennial screening, annual screening improved detection for women with a family or personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, supporting screening that is more frequent. The benefit for annual screening for women with higher mammographic density must be weighed against possible harms of increased false positives.

Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors of First Degree Relatives of Women Receiving Breast Cancer Treatment and the Affecting Factors

Objective

First-degree relatives of women with breast cancer are under higher risk when compared with the general population. The aim of this study is to evaluate breast cancer screening behaviors of women who are first-degree relatives of women with breast cancer and factors affecting these behaviors.

Materials and Methods

This descriptive study included 240 patient relatives, who agreed to participate in the study through contact with first-degree relatives of 133 patients who were receiving breast cancer treatment at the Oncology and Chemotherapy unit of an university hospital in Turkey. Data were collected using the "Descriptive Characteristics Form," which consisted of socio-demographic characteristics, health history, breast cancer risk level and health beliefs as well as the "Breast Cancer Screening Behavior Evaluation Form".

Results

Out of the subjects, 17% reported doing breast self examination (BSE), 18% reported getting clinic breast examination (CBE) and 17% reported getting mammography. Logistic regression analysis showed that perceived susceptibility increased BSE by 0.57 times and increased mammography by 0.77 times. Physical exercise increased CBE by 0.21 times and increased mammography by 0.13 times.

Conclusions

It was found that women with familial breast cancer history (FBCH) had lower participation in screening behaviors. Higher susceptibility perception and regular physical exercise are the determinant variables. Women with a higher susceptibility can be led towards the screening and their participation can be increased. In women with family history, the development of healthy lifestyle behaviors like physical exercise should be supported.

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.

Does perceived risk predict breast cancer screening use? Findings from a prospective cohort study of female relatives from the Ontario site of the breast cancer family registry

While the relationship between perceived risk and breast cancer screening use has been studied extensively, most studies are cross-sectional. We prospectively examined this relationship among 913 women, aged 25-72 with varying levels of familial breast cancer risk from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Associations between perceived lifetime breast cancer risk and subsequent use of mammography, clinical breast examination (CBE) and genetic testing were assessed using logistic regression. Overall, perceived risk did not predict subsequent use of mammography, CBE or genetic testing. Among women at moderate/high familial risk, those reporting a perceived risk greater than 50% were significantly less likely to have a CBE (odds ratio (OR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.91, p = 0.04), and non-significantly less likely to have a mammogram (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.40-1.20, p = 0.70) or genetic test (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.34-1.10, p = 0.09) compared to women reporting a perceived risk of 50%. In contrast, among women at low familial risk, those reporting a perceived risk greater than 50% were non-significantly more likely to have a mammogram (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.59-2.16, p = 0.78), CBE (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.63-1.95, p = 0.74) or genetic test (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.50-3.33, p = 0.35) compared to women reporting a perceived risk of 50%. Perceived risk did not significantly predict screening use overall, however this relationship may be moderated by level of familial risk. Results may inform risk education and management strategies for women with varying levels of familial breast cancer risk.

Impact of familial risk and mammography screening on prognostic indicators of breast disease among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry

Although several studies have found screen-detected cancers in women with familial breast cancer risk have favorable prognostic features compared with symptomatic cancers, the impact of level of familial risk is unknown. A cohort of 899 first-degree female relatives of cases of breast cancer from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry was followed for 2 years. Logistic regression analyses compared diagnoses of breast cancer or benign breast disease (BBD) between women at high (n = 258, 28.7 %) versus low/moderate (n = 641, 71.3 %) familial risk. Similar analyses compared prognostic features of invasive cancers and BBD by level of familial risk and mammography screening status. Among 899 women, 44 (4.9 %) were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and/or ductal carcinoma in situ, and 56 (6.2 %) with BBD. Women with high familial risk were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 2.84, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.50-5.38] than low/moderate risk women, particularly if diagnosed at age ≥50 (OR = 2.99, 95 % CI 1.37-6.56) or screened with mammography (OR = 3.33, 95 % CI 1.54-7.18). High risk women were more likely to be diagnosed with BBD (OR = 1.94, 95 % CI 1.03-3.66). Level of familial risk was not associated with prognostic features. Cancers among unscreened women were larger (OR = 9.72, 95 % CI 1.01-93.61) and diagnosed at stage II or above (OR = 7.80, 95 % CI 1.18-51.50) compared with screen-detected cancers. Screening mammography may be effective for women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, irrespective of level of familial risk.

Beliefs about optimal age and screening frequency predict breast screening adherence in a prospective study of female relatives from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry

Background

Although few studies have linked cognitive variables with adherence to mammography screening in women with family histories of breast and/or ovarian cancer, research studies suggest cognitive phenomena can be powerful adherence predictors.

Methods

This prospective study included 858 women aged 30 to 71 years from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry with at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer. Data on beliefs about breast cancer screening and use of mammography were obtained from annual telephone interviews spanning three consecutive years. Self-reported mammogram dates were confirmed with medical imaging reports. Associations between beliefs about breast cancer screening and adherence with annual mammography were estimated using polytomous logistic regression models corrected for familial correlation. Models compared adherers (N = 329) with late-screeners (N = 382) and never-screeners (N = 147).

Results

Women who believed mammography screening should occur annually were more likely to adhere to annual screening recommendations than women who believed it should happen less often (OR: 5.02; 95% CI: 2.97-8.49 for adherers versus late-screeners; OR: 6.82; 95% CI: 3.29-14.16 for adherers versus never-screeners). Women who believed mammography screening should start at or before age 50 (rather than after) (OR: 9.72; 95% CI: 3.26-29.02) were significantly more likely to adhere when compared with never-screeners.

Conclusions

Study results suggest that women with a family history of breast cancer should be strongly communicated recommendations about initial age of screening and screening intervals as related beliefs significantly predict adequate adherence.