Breast cancer biology varies by method of detection and may contribute to overdiagnosis

Breast cancer outcomes based on method of detection in community-based breast cancer registry

PURPOSE

The impact of opportunistic screening mammography in the United States is difficult to quantify, partially due to lack of inclusion regarding method of detection (MOD) in national registries. This study sought to determine the feasibility of MOD collection in a multicenter community registry and to compare outcomes and characteristics of breast cancer based on MOD.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of breast cancer patients from a multicenter tumor registry in Missouri from January 2004 - December 2018. Registry data were extracted by certified tumor registrars and included MOD, clinicopathologic information, and treatment. MOD was assigned as screen-detected or clinically detected. Data were analyzed at the patient level. Chi-squared tests were used for categorical variable comparison and Mann-Whitney-U test was used for numerical variable comparison.

RESULTS

5351 women (median age, 63 years; interquartile range, 53-73 years) were included. Screen-detected cancers were smaller than clinically detected cancers (median size 12 mm vs. 25 mm; P < .001) and more likely node-negative (81% vs. 54%; P < .001), lower grade (P < .001), and lower stage (P < .001). Screen-detected cancers were more likely treated with lumpectomy vs. mastectomy (73% vs. 41%; P < .001) and less likely to require chemotherapy (24% vs. 52%; P < .001). Overall survival for patients with invasive breast cancer was higher for screen-detected cancers (89% vs. 74%, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

MOD can be routinely collected and linked to breast cancer outcomes through tumor registries, with demonstration of significant differences in outcome and characteristics of breast cancers based on MOD. Routine inclusion of MOD in US tumor registries would help quantify the impact of opportunistic screening mammography in the US.

Breast Cancer Screening: Is There Room for De-escalation?

Purpose of Review

Breast cancer screening is highly controversial and different agencies have widely varying guidelines. Yet it is currently used extensively in the USA and frequently the thought is "the more, the better." The purpose of this review is to objectively assess the risks and benefits of screening mammography and consider whether there may be areas where it could be de-escalated.

Recent Findings

Over the past few years, there have been several meta-analyses that are concordant, and it is now agreed that the main benefit of screening mammography is about a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality. This actually benefits about 5% of patients with mammographically detected tumors. We now appreciate that the main harm of screening is overdiagnosis, i.e. detection of a cancer that will not cause the patient any harm and would not have ever been detected without the screening. This currently represents about 20 to 30% of screening detected cancers. Finding extra cancers with more intense screening is not always good, because in this situation, the risk of overdiagnosis increases and the benefit decreases. In some groups, the risk of overdiagnosis approaches 75%.

Summary

Our goal should be not only to find more cancers, but to avoid finding cancers that would never have caused the patient any harm and lead to unnecessary treatment. The authors suggest some situations where it may be reasonable to de-escalate screening.

The impact of tumor detection method on genomic and clinical risk and chemotherapy recommendation in early hormone receptor positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic breast cancers share aggressive clinico-pathological characteristics compared to screen-detected breast cancers. We assessed the association between the method of cancer detection and genomic and clinical risk, and its effect on adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with early hormone receptor positive (HR+) HER2neu-negative (HER2-) breast cancer, and known OncotypeDX Breast Recurrence Score test were included. A natural language processing (NLP) algorithm was used to identify the method of cancer detection. The clinical and genomic risks of symptomatic and screen-detected tumors were compared.

RESULTS

The NLP algorithm identified the method of detection of 401 patients, with 216 (54%) diagnosed by routine screening, and the remainder secondary to symptoms. The distribution of OncotypeDX recurrence score (RS) varied between the groups. In the symptomatic group there were lower proportions of low RS (13% vs 23%) and higher proportions of high RS (24% vs. 13%) compared to the screen-detected group. Symptomatic tumors were significantly more likely to have a high clinical risk (59% vs 40%). Based on genomic and clinical risk and current guidelines, we found that women aged 50 and under, with a symptomatic cancer, had an increased probability of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy recommendation compared to women with screen-detected cancers (60% vs. 37%).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated an association between the method of cancer detection and both genomic and clinical risk. Symptomatic breast cancer, especially in young women, remains a poor prognostic factor that should be taken into account when evaluating patient prognosis and determining adjuvant treatment plans.

Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification

To compare diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography (CEDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and in combination compared to 2D digital mammography (MX) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in women with breast lesions. We enrolled 100 consecutive patients with breast lesions (BIRADS 3-5 at imaging or clinically suspicious). CEDM, DBT, and DCE-MRI 2D were acquired. Synthetized MX was obtained by DBT. A total of 134 lesions were investigated on 111 breasts of 100 enrolled patients: 53 were histopathologically proven as benign and 81 as malignant. Nonparametric statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were performed. Two-dimensional synthetized MX showed an area under ROC curve (AUC) of 0.764 (sensitivity 65%, specificity 80%), while AUC was of 0.845 (sensitivity 80%, specificity 82%) for DBT, of 0.879 (sensitivity 82%, specificity 80%) for CEDM, and of 0.892 (sensitivity 91%, specificity 84%) for CE-MRI. DCE-MRI determined an AUC of 0.934 (sensitivity 96%, specificity 88%). Combined CEDM with DBT findings, we obtained an AUC of 0.890 (sensitivity 89%, specificity 74%). A difference statistically significant was observed only between DCE-MRI and CEDM (P = .03). DBT, CEDM, CEDM combined to tomosynthesis, and DCE-MRI had a high ability to identify multifocal and bilateral lesions with a detection rate of 77%, 85%, 91%, and 95% respectively, while 2D synthetized MX had a detection rate for multifocal lesions of 56%. DBT and CEDM have superior diagnostic accuracy of 2D synthetized MX to identify and classify breast lesions, and CEDM combined with DBT has better diagnostic performance compared with DBT alone. The best results in terms of diagnostic performance were obtained by DCE-MRI. Dynamic information obtained by time-intensity curve including entire phase of contrast agent uptake allows a better detection and classification of breast lesions.

Factors Associated with Initial Mode of Breast Cancer Detection among Black Women in the Women's Circle of Health Study

Mammogram-detected breast cancers have a better prognosis than those identified through clinical breast exam (CBE) or through self-detection, primarily because tumors detected by mammography are more likely to be smaller and do not involve regional nodes. In a sample of 1,322 Black women, aged 40-75 years, diagnosed with breast cancer between 2002 and 2016, we evaluated factors associated with CBE and self-detection versus screening mammogram as the initial mode of breast cancer detection, using multivariable logistic regression models. Compared with screening mammogram, history of routine screening mammogram (OR 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.54) and performance of breast self-examination (BSE) (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.74) before diagnosis were associated with lower odds of CBE as the initial mode of detection, while performance of CBEs before diagnosis (OR 11.04, 95% CI: 2.24, 54.55) was positively associated. Lower body mass index (<25.0 kg/m2 vs. ≥35.0 kg/m2: OR 2.46, 95% CI: 1.52, 3.98), performance of BSEs before diagnosis (less than once per month: OR 4.08, 95% CI: 2.45, 6.78; at least monthly: OR 4.99, 95% CI: 3.13, 7.97), and larger tumor size (1.0-2.0 cm vs. <1.0 cm: OR 2.92, 95% CI: 1.84, 4.64; >2.0 cm vs. <1.0 cm: OR 6.41, 95% CI: 3.30, 12.46) were associated with increased odds of self-detection relative to screening mammogram. The odds of CBE and self-detection as initial modes of breast cancer detection among Black women are independently associated with breast care and breast cancer screening services before diagnosis and with larger tumors at diagnosis.

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.

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.