Interval Breast Cancer Versus Screen-Detected Cancer: Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics in a Single-Center Analysis

Radiological features of screening-detected and interval breast cancers and subsequent survival in Eastern Finnish women

Interval breast cancers are diagnosed between scheduled screenings and differ in many respects from screening-detected cancers. Studies comparing the survival of patients with interval and screening-detected cancers have reported differing results. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiological and histopathological features and growth rates of screening-detected and interval breast cancers and subsequent survival. This retrospective study included 942 female patients aged 50-69 years with breast cancers treated and followed-up at Kuopio University Hospital between January 2010 and December 2016. The screening-detected and interval cancers were classified as true, minimal-signs, missed, or occult. The radiological features were assessed on mammograms by one of two specialist breast radiologists with over 15 years of experience. A χ2 test was used to examine the association between radiological and pathological variables; an unpaired t test was used to compare the growth rates of missed and minimal-signs cancers; and the Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to examine survival after screening-detected and interval cancers. Sixty occult cancers were excluded, so a total of 882 women (mean age 60.4 ± 5.5 years) were included, in whom 581 had screening-detected cancers and 301 interval cancers. Disease-specific survival, overall survival and disease-free survival were all worse after interval cancer than after screening-detected cancer (p < 0.001), with a mean follow-up period of 8.2 years. There were no statistically significant differences in survival between the subgroups of screening-detected or interval cancers. Missed interval cancers had faster growth rates (0.47% ± 0.77%/day) than missed screening-detected cancers (0.21% ± 0.11%/day). Most cancers (77.2%) occurred in low-density breasts (< 25%). The most common lesion types were masses (73.9%) and calcifications (13.4%), whereas distortions (1.8%) and asymmetries (1.7%) were the least common. Survival was worse after interval cancers than after screening-detected cancers, attributed to their more-aggressive histopathological characteristics, more nodal and distant metastases, and faster growth rates.

Long-term trends in incidence, characteristics and prognosis of screen-detected and interval cancers in women participating in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme

BACKGROUND

No studies are available in which changes over time in characteristics and prognosis of patients with interval breast cancers (ICs) and screen-detected breast cancers (SDCs) have been compared. The aim was to study these trends between 1995 and 2018.

METHODS

All women with invasive SDCs (N = 4290) and ICs (N = 1352), diagnosed in a southern mammography screening region in the Netherlands, were included and followed until date of death or 31 December 2022.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival rate of women with SDCs increased from 91.4% for those diagnosed in 1995-1999 to 95.0% for those diagnosed in 2013-2018 (P < 0.001), and from 74.8 to 91.6% (P < 0.001) in the same periods for those with ICs. A similar trend was observed for the 10-year survival rates. After adjustment for changes in tumour characteristics, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.59) for women with SDCs diagnosed in the period 2013-2018, compared to the women diagnosed in the period 1995-1999. For the women with ICs this HR was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.19-0.40).

CONCLUSION

The prognosis of women with ICs has improved rapidly since 1995 and is now almost similar to that of women with SDCs.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts

BACKGROUND

Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI.

METHODS

Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Evaluation of a population-based breast cancer screening in North China

BACKGROUND

Despite mammography-based screening for breast cancer has been conducted in many countries, there are still little data on participation and diagnostic yield in population-based breast cancer screening in China.

METHODS

We enrolled 151,973 eligible women from four cities in Hebei Province within the period 2013-2021 and followed up until December 31, 2021. Participants aged 40-74 who assessed as high risk were invited to undergo breast ultrasound and mammography examination. Overall and group-specific participation rates were calculated. Multivariable analyses were used to estimate the factors associated with participation rates. The diagnostic yield of both screening and no screening groups was calculated. We further analyzed the stage distribution and molecular subtype of breast cancer cases by different modes of cancer detection.

RESULTS

A total of 42,547 participants were evaluated to be high risk of breast cancer. Among them, 23,009 subjects undertook screening services, with participation rate of 54.08%. Multivariable logistic regression model showed that aged 45-64, high education level, postmenopausal, current smoking, alcohol consumption, family history of breast cancer, and benign breast disease were associated with increased participation of screening. After median follow-up of 3.79 years, there were 456 breast cancer diagnoses of which 65 were screen-detected breast cancers (SBCs), 27 were interval breast cancers (IBCs), 68 were no screening cancers, and 296 were cancers detected outside the screening program. Among them, 92 participants in the screening group (0.40%) and 364 in the non-screening group (0.28%) had breast cancer detected, which resulted in an odds ratio of 1.42 (95% CI 1.13-1.78; P = 0.003). We observed a higher detection rate of breast cancer in the screening group, with ORs of 2.42 (95% CI 1.72-3.41) for early stage (stages 0-I) and 2.12 (95% CI 1.26-3.54) for luminal A subtype. SBCs had higher proportion of early stage (71.93%) and luminal A subtype (47.22%) than other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant differences in breast cancer diagnosis between the screening and non-screening group imply an urgent need for increased breast cancer awareness and early detection in China.

Severity and risk factors of interval breast cancer in Queensland, Australia: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Interval breast cancers (BC) are those diagnosed within 24 months of a negative mammogram. This study estimates the odds of being diagnosed with high-severity BC among screen-detected, interval, and other symptom-detected BC (no screening history within 2 years); and explores factors associated with being diagnosed with interval BC.

METHODS

Telephone interviews and self-administered questionnaires were conducted among women (n = 3,326) diagnosed with BC in 2010-2013 in Queensland. Respondents were categorised into screen-detected, interval, and other symptom-detected BCs. Data were analysed using logistic regressions with multiple imputation.

RESULTS

Compared with screen-detected BC, interval BC had higher odds of late-stage (OR = 3.50, 2.9-4.3), high-grade (OR = 2.36, 1.9-2.9) and triple-negative cancers (OR = 2.55, 1.9-3.5). Compared with other symptom-detected BC, interval BC had lower odds of late stage (OR = 0.75, 0.6-0.9), but higher odds of triple-negative cancers (OR = 1.68, 1.2-2.3). Among women who had a negative mammogram (n = 2,145), 69.8% were diagnosed at their next mammogram, while 30.2% were diagnosed with an interval cancer. Those with an interval cancer were more likely to have healthy weight (OR = 1.37, 1.1-1.7), received hormone replacement therapy (2-10 years: OR = 1.33, 1.0-1.7; > 10 years: OR = 1.55, 1.1-2.2), conducted monthly breast self-examinations (BSE) (OR = 1.66, 1.2-2.3) and had previous mammogram in a public facility (OR = 1.52, 1.2-2.0).

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the benefits of screening even among those with an interval cancer. Women-conducted BSE were more likely to have interval BC which may reflect their increased ability to notice symptoms between screening intervals.

Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in node-negative T1a versus T1b and T1c triple-negative breast cancer

PURPOSE

National comprehensive cancer network guidelines recommend delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy in node-negative triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) if the tumor is > 1 cm and consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy for T1b but not T1a disease. These recommendations are based upon sparse data on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in T1a and T1b node-negative TNBC. Our objective was to clarify the benefits of chemotherapy for patients with T1N0 TNBC, stratified by tumor size.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of survival outcomes of TNBC patients at two academic institutions in the United States from 1999 to 2018. Primary tumor size, histology, and nodal status were based upon surgical pathology. The Kaplan-Meier plot and 5-year unadjusted survival probability were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 282 T1N0 TNBC cases, the status of adjuvant chemotherapy was known for 258. Mean follow-up was 5.3 years. Adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered to 30.5% of T1a, 64.7% T1b, and 83.9% T1c (p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy were tumor size and grade 3 disease. Improved overall survival was associated with use of chemotherapy in patients with T1c disease (93.2% vs. 75.2% p = 0.008) but not T1a (100% vs. 100% p = 0.3778) or T1b (100% vs. 95.8% p = 0.2362) disease.

CONCLUSION

Our data support current guidelines indicating benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in node-negative TNBC associated with T1c tumors but excellent outcomes were observed in the cases of T1a and T1b disease, regardless of whether adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered.

True and Missed Interval Cancer in Organized Mammographic Screening: A Retrospective Review Study of Diagnostic and Prior Screening Mammograms

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To explore radiological aspects of interval breast cancer in a population-based screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a consensus-based informed review of mammograms from diagnosis and prior screening from women diagnosed with interval cancer 2004-2016 in BreastScreen Norway. Cases were classified as true (no findings on prior screening mammograms), occult (no findings at screening or diagnosis), minimal signs (minor/non-specific findings) and missed (obvious findings). We analyzed mammographic findings, density, time since prior screening, and histopathological characteristics between the classification groups.

RESULTS

The study included 1010 interval cancer cases. Mean age at diagnosis was 61 years (SD = 6), mean time between screening and diagnosis 14 months (SD = 7). A total of 48% (479/1010) were classified as true or occult, 28% (285/1010) as minimal signs and 24% (246/1010) as missed. We observed no differences in mammographic density between the groups, except from a higher percentage of dense breasts in women with occult cancer. Among cancers classified as missed, about 1/3 were masses and 1/3 asymmetries at prior screening. True interval cancers were diagnosed later in the screening interval than the other classification categories. No differences in histopathological characteristics were observed between true, minimal signs and missed cases.

CONCLUSION

In an informed review, 24% of the interval cancers were classified as missed based on visibility and mammographic findings on prior screening mammograms. Three out of four true interval cancers were diagnosed in the second year of the screening interval. We observed no statistical differences in histopathological characteristics between true and missed interval cancers.

Differences in breast cancer-risk factors between screen-detected and non-screen-detected cases (MCC-Spain study)

Purpose

The variation in breast cancer (BC)-risk factor associations between screen-detected (SD) and non-screen-detected (NSD) tumors has been poorly studied, despite the interest of this aspect in risk assessment and prevention. This study analyzes the differences in breast cancer-risk factor associations according to detection method and tumor phenotype in Spanish women aged between 50 and 69.

Methods

We examined 900 BC cases and 896 controls aged between 50 and 69, recruited in the multicase–control MCC-Spain study. With regard to the cases, 460 were detected by screening mammography, whereas 144 were diagnosed by other means. By tumor phenotype, 591 were HR+, 153 were HER2+, and 58 were TN. Lifestyle, reproductive factors, family history of BC, and tumor characteristics were analyzed. Logistic regression models were used to compare cases vs. controls and SD vs. NSD cases. Multinomial regression models (controls used as a reference) were adjusted for case analysis according to phenotype and detection method.

Results

TN was associated with a lower risk of SD BC (OR 0.30 IC 0.10–0.89), as were intermediate (OR 0.18 IC 0.07–0.44) and advanced stages at diagnosis (OR 0.11 IC 0.03–0.34). Nulliparity in postmenopausal women and age at menopause were related to an increased risk of SD BC (OR 1.60 IC 1.08–2.36; OR 1.48 IC 1.09–2.00, respectively). Nulliparity in postmenopausal women was associated with a higher risk of HR+ (OR 1.66 IC 1.15–2.40). Age at menopause was related to a greater risk of HR+ (OR 1.60 IC 1.22–2.11) and HER2+ (OR 1.59 IC 1.03–2.45) tumors.

Conclusion

Reproductive risk factors are associated with SD BC, as are HR+ tumors. Differences in BC-risk factor associations according to detection method may be related to prevailing phenotypes among categories.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10552-021-01511-4.

Triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancers found by mammography screening show excellent prognosis

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to explore the prognosis of aggressive breast cancers of the HER2 oncogene amplification (HER2 +) and triple-negative (TN) subtypes detected by screening, as well as the prognosis of interval cancers (clinically due to symptoms between screening rounds) and cancers in screening nonparticipants.

METHODS

The study population comprised of 823 breast cancers in women aged 50-69 years from 2006-2014. Of these, 572 were found by screening mammography (69%), 170 were diagnosed between the screening rounds (21%), and 81 were diagnosed in women who did not participate in the screening program (10%).

RESULTS

The majority of all HER2 + (59%) and TN cancers (57%) in this age group were detected by screening. Screen-detected HER2 + tumors were small (median 12 mm), and node-negative (84%). During a median follow-up of eight years, the distant disease-free survival of screen-detected HER2 + and TN cancers was better than that of interval and nonparticipant cancers (age-adjusted HR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.81 and HR = 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.79, respectively). In nonparticipants, the distant disease-free survival of these cancers was worse than in participants (age-adjusted HR = 2.52, 95% CI 0.63-10.11 and HR = 5.30, 95% 1.16-24.29, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In the 50-69 age group, the majority of HER2 + and TN cancers can be found by a quality assured population-based mammography screening. Despite their generally aggressive behavior, after a median follow-up of 8 years, distant disease-free survival was over 90% of these cancers detected by screening. The worst prognosis of these cancers was in women who did not participate in screening.

Which type of cancer is detected in breast screening programs? Review of the literature with focus on the most frequent histological features

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer affecting female patients. The introduction of breast cancer screening programs led to a substantial reduction of mortality from breast cancer. Nevertheless, doubts are being raised on the real efficacy of breast screening programs. The aim of the present paper is to review the main pathological type of cancers detected in breast cancer screening programs. Specifically, attention will be given to: in situ carcinoma, invasive carcinoma histotypes and interval cancer.

Epidemiology of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Review

ABSTRACT

Triple-negative breast cancer accounted for 12% of breast cancers diagnosed in the United States from 2012 to 2016, with a 5-year survival 8% to 16% lower than hormone receptor-positive disease. However, preventive and screening strategies remain tailored to the demographics of less lethal luminal cancers. This review examines the ethnic, genetic, and modifiable risk factors associated with triple-negative breast cancer, which providers must recognize to address the societal disparities of this deadly disease. Most notable is that triple-negative cancers disproportionately affect African American women and carriers of germline BRCA and PALB2 mutations. Even controlling for treatment delays, stage, and socioeconomic factors, African Americans with triple-negative breast cancer remain nearly twice as likely to die of their disease. To level the playing field, we must integrate genomic predictors of disease and epidemiologic characteristics of molecular breast cancer subtypes to provide personalized risk assessment, screening, and treatment for each patient.

Five-Year Overall Survival of Interval Breast Cancers is Better than Non- Interval Cancers from Korean Breast Cancer Registry

Objective: Interval breast cancer (IC) is a limitation of breast cancer screening. We investigated data from a large scaled breast cancer dataset of patients with breast cancer who underwent breast cancer screening in order to recapitulate the overall survival (OS) of patients with ICs compared to those with non-ICs. Methods: A total of 27,141 patients in the Korean breast cancer registry with breast cancer who had ever participated in biannual national breast cancer screening programs between 2009 and 2013 were enrolled. We compared the social, pregnancy-associated, and pathologic characteristics between the IC and non-IC groups and identified the significant prognostic factors for OS. Results: The proportion of ICs was 1.3% (370/27,141) in this study population. ICs were correlated with age 45-55 years at diagnosis, higher levels of education, early menopause (<50 years), hormone replacement therapy, specific provinces (Kangwon, Kyungnam, Jeju, and Dae-jeon), and family history of breast cancer. Low-to-intermediate nuclear grade, early stage (stage 0-I), and low Ki-67 level were also correlated with IC proportion. Non-ICs were associated with an increased risk of five-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.85-29.66; p = 0.005) compared to ICs. Lymph node metastasis, residence (Kyung-nam province), low education status, high histologic grade, and asymptomatic cancers increased the HR of five-year OS. Conclusion: ICs occurred unequally in specific province and relatively high-educated women in Korea. They were also diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer with a favorable recurrence risk, and their outcome was better than those of patients with other breast cancers in breast cancer screening.

Outcomes in different ethnic groups of New Zealand patients with screen-detected vs. non-screen-detected breast cancer

Objective

To compare characteristics and survival of New Zealand European, Māori, and Pacific women with screen-detected vs. non-screen-detected breast cancer.

Methods

Women aged 45–69 diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between January 2005 and May 2013 were identified from the Waikato and Auckland Breast Cancer Registries. Patient demographics and tumour characteristics were described by detection mode and ethnicity. Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate the five-year breast cancer-specific survival of women with stage I–III breast cancer by ethnicity and detection mode.

Results

Women with screen-detected cancers were older, had smaller tumours, fewer stage IV (0.8% vs. 7.6%), fewer high grade (16.8% vs. 39.0%), and fewer lymph node positive diseases (26.3% vs. 51.5%) than women with non-screen-detected cancers. There were more Luminal A (70.0% vs. 54.0%), fewer human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive non-Luminal (4.4% vs. 8.8%), and fewer triple negative cases (7.0% vs. 13.8%) in screen-detected than non-screen-detected cancers. If not screen detected, 22.7% of breast cancers in Pacific women were stage IV compared with 2.4% if screen detected. If not screen detected, the five-year breast cancer-specific survival was 91.1% for New Zealand European women, 84.2% for Māori women, and 80.2% for Pacific women (p-value <0.001). For screen-detected breast cancer, survival between different ethnic groups was similar.

Conclusions

Breast cancers detected through screening are diagnosed at an earlier stage and have a greater proportion of subtypes, with better outcome. Variations in survival for Māori and Pacific women are only found in women with non-screen-detected breast cancer.

Molecular comparison of interval and screen-detected breast cancers

Breast cancer (BC) diagnosed after a negative mammogram but prior to the next screening episode is termed an 'interval BC' (IBC). Understanding the molecular differences between IBC and screen-detected BCs (SDBC) could improve mammographic screening and management options. Therefore, we assessed both germline and somatic genomic aberrations in a prospective cohort. Utilising the Lifepool cohort of >54 000 women attending mammographic screening programs, 930 BC cases with screening status were identified (726 SDBC and 204 IBC). Clinico-pathological and family history information were recorded. Germline and tumour DNA were collected where available and sequenced for BC predisposition and driver gene mutations. Compared to SDBC, IBCs were significantly associated with a younger age at diagnosis and tumour characteristics associated with worse prognosis. Germline DNA assessment of BC cases that developed post-enrolment (276 SDBCs and 77 IBCs) for pathogenic mutations in 12 hereditary BC predisposition genes identified 8 carriers (2.27%). The germline mutation frequency was higher in IBC versus SDBC, although not statistically significant (3.90% versus 1.81%, p = 0.174). Comparing somatic genetic features of IBC and SDBC matched for grade, histological subtype and hormone receptor revealed no significant differences, with the exception of higher homologous recombination deficiency scores in IBC, and copy number changes on chromosome Xq in triple negative SDBCs. Our data demonstrates that while IBCs are clinically more aggressive than SDBC, when matched for confounding clinico-pathological features they do not represent a unique molecular class of invasive BC, but could be a consequence of timing of tumour initiation and mammographic screening. Copyright © 2019 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Tumour characteristics of bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers in women participating at biennial screening mammography

BACKGROUND

Unilateral interval breast cancers show less favourable prognostic features than unilateral screen-detected cancers, but data on tumour characteristics of bilateral interval cancers in a systematically screened population are sparse. Therefore, we compared tumour characteristics of bilateral interval cancers with those of bilateral screen-detected cancers.

METHODS

We included all 468,720 screening mammograms of women who underwent biennial screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands between January 2005 and January 2015. We collected breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all recalled women and of all women who presented with interval breast cancer. In women with synchronous bilateral breast cancer, the tumour with the highest tumour stage was defined as the index cancer. For comparison of data between both groups Fisher exact test and Chi-square test were used.

RESULTS

Synchronous bilateral cancer was diagnosed in 2.2% of screen-detected cancers (64/2947) and in 3.2% of interval cancers (24/753) (P = 0.1). Index tumours of bilateral screen-detected cancers and interval cancers showed similar characteristics, except for a larger proportion of T-stage 2 or worse (T2+) cancers among interval cancers (16/24 (66.7%) versus 23/58 (39.7%) (P = 0.03). Index cancers, compared to contralateral cancers, were less frequently stage T1 in both bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers (35/64 (60.3%) versus 40/64 (88.9%) (P = 0.001) and 8/24 (33.3%) versus 18/24 (85.7%) (P < 0.001), respectively). In bilateral screen-detected cancers, contralateral cancers were more often stage 1a-c (P < 0.001) compared to index cancers. In bilateral index cancers, index cancers were more often of the lobular subtype (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Index cancers of bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers show significant differences in tumour size, whereas nodal status, receptor status and final surgical treatment are comparable. In bilateral screen-detected cancer, index cancers had a significantly higher tumour stage. In bilateral screen-detected cancer, index cancers were more often the ductal invasive subtype compared to contralateral cancers.

MR imaging features and tumor biomarkers of screen-detected and non-screen detected breast cancers: preliminary results of a comparative study

PURPOSE

To investigate differences in clinical features, MRI findings and tumor biomarker characteristics in screen-detected (SCD) and non-screendetected (NSCD) cancers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 62 women (mean age, 48.4 years; range, 33-68 years) with biopsy confirmed breast cancer who underwent preoperative breast MRI were retrospectively evaluated by two expert radiologists. The women were divided into two groups according to the mode of cancer detection (Group A: screen- detected, Group B: non-screen/symptomatic cancer) and clinical, histopathological, MRI characteristics and biomarker features in each group were evaluated.

RESULTS

NSCD tumors had significantly greater size (3.5 cm vs. 2.1 cm) and Ki-67 expression (68.4% vs. 41.7%) in comparison to SCD cancers. NSCD cancers were less likely to have strongly positive progesterone receptors (Pr) and more likely to have Ki-67 > 15% or positive nodal status (47.4% vs. 8.3%). Increased breast density (ACR C and D: 78.9% vs. 50%ACR A and B) and intense background parenchymal enhancement (BPE, moderate/marked: 42.1% vs. 8.3% minimal/mild) were significantly more frequent in NSCD cases.

CONCLUSION

NSCD cancers had higher prevalence of poor prognostic characteristics in comparison to SCD tumors, including larger tumor size, higher Ki-67 index, and positive nodes. Increased fibroglandular tissue and intense BPE were both strongly associated with NSCD cancers, supporting their use as potential MR biomarkers in breast cancer risk models.

Screening status, tumour subtype, and breast cancer survival: a national population-based analysis

PURPOSE

We examined whether demographic and tumour characteristics (including subtype) were different for women with breast cancer diagnosed via mammography screening compared with women with interval breast cancers, lapsed attenders of the screening programme and non-participants of the screening programme. In addition, we explored whether there were survival differences between the groups, taking into account lead time bias.

METHODS

We used linked data from National Cancer Registry Ireland and the national breast screening programme BreastCheck. Multinomial logistic regression was used to test the association of covariates with screening status. For survival analysis, we corrected the survival time for screen-detected cases for lead time bias, examined Kaplan-Meier curves and then used Cox regression to investigate differences in survival by screening status.

RESULTS

Subtype (HER2 over-expressing, triple negative), stage (III/IV), grade (poor), having co-morbidities, area of deprivation, smoking status and age were associated with having interval cancer or being a non-participant of the screening programme in the multivariable model. After correcting for lead time bias, and adjusting for variables associated with screening status, there was no evidence that risk of breast-cancer death for women with screen-detected cancer was different from women with interval cancer (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.03), non-participants (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.37) and lapsed attenders (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.65-1.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening status was strongly associated with subtype and this association persisted after adjustment for covariates including tumour stage and grade. After correcting for lead-time bias and adjusting for stage, subtype, grade and socio-demographic variables, no significant survival difference was demonstrated for women with screen-detected cancer in the 5-year period post-diagnosis. Since we are adjusting for stage, subtype and other variables, the lack of difference between these groups would be expected but has not been demonstrated in studies which do not correct for lead time bias.

The Effect of the 2009 USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendations on breast cancer in Michigan: A longitudinal study

In 2009, the revised United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommended against routine screening mammography for women age 40-49 years and against teaching self-breast examinations (SBE). The aim of this study was to analyze whether breast cancer method of presentation changed following the 2009 USPSTF screening recommendations in a large Michigan cohort. Data were collected on women with newly diagnosed stage 0-III breast cancer participating in the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative (MiBOQI) registry at 25 statewide institutions from 2006 to 2015. Data included method of detection, cancer stage, treatment type, and patient demographics. In all, 30 008 women with breast cancer detected via mammogram or palpation with an average age of 60.1 years were included. 38% of invasive cancers were identified by palpation. Presentation with palpable findings decreased slightly over time, from 34.6% in 2006 to 28.9% in 2015 (P < .001). Over the 9-year period, there was no statistically significant change in rate of palpation-detected tumors for women age <50 years or ≥50 years (P = .27, .30, respectively). Younger women were more likely to present with palpable tumors compared to older women in a statewide registry. This rate did not increase following publication of the 2009 USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendations.

Incidence and tumour characteristics of bilateral and unilateral interval breast cancers at screening mammography

BACKGROUND

Detected by screening mammography, bilateral breast cancer has a different pathological profile compared to unilateral breast cancer. We investigated the incidence of bilateral interval breast cancers and compared their characteristics with those of unilateral interval breast cancers.

METHODS

We included all 468,720 screening mammograms of women who underwent biennial screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands between January 2005 and January 2015. We collected breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all referred women and of all women who presented with interval breast cancer. The tumour with the highest tumour stage (index cancer) was used for comparison with unilateral interval cancers.

RESULTS

A total of 753 interval cancers were detected, of which 24 (3.2%) were bilateral. Among the invasive interval cancers, bilateral cancers more frequently showed a lobular histology than unilateral cancers (37.5% (9/24) vs. 16.1% (111/691), P = .01). There is a trend towards a larger proportion of bilateral than unilateral interval cancers graded 1 (45.8% (11/24) vs. 27.8% (192/691), P = .08). There were no other statistically significant differences in tumour characteristics. Also, the proportion of interval cancers showing significant mammographic abnormalities at the latest screen was comparable for unilateral and bilateral interval cancers (23.0% vs. 25.0%, P = .9).

DISCUSSION

Bilateral interval cancers comprise a small proportion of all interval cancers. Except of a higher proportion of invasive lobular cancers and a more favourable histological grade of invasive cancers, tumour characteristics are comparable for bilateral and unilateral interval breast cancers.