Effect of radiotherapy on the interpretation of routine follow-up mammography after conservative breast surgery: a randomized study

Breast cancer survivors' risk of interval cancers and false positive results in organized mammography screening

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survivors are increasing followed for new breast cancers / recurrences by mammography screening only. We aimed at assessing how often breast cancer survivors get a false positive or false negative result at mammography screening.

METHODS

All mammography screenings performed between 2007 and 2017 in the Danish national mammography screening programme were included. Screenings in women with a breast cancer diagnosis prior to invitation were included in the "breast cancer survivors" group, while remaining screenings were included in the "no previous breast cancer" group. We compared the proportion of false positive screenings and the proportion of breast cancers detected at screening among breast cancer survivors and women without previous breast cancer. The analyses were further stratified according to whether the women had a diagnostic breast imaging in the 21 months prior to the screening.

RESULTS

At initial screenings, breast cancer survivors had a significant lower false positive risk than other women, while the risk was similar at subsequent screenings. Breast cancer survivors had a significant lower proportion of breast cancers detected at screening compared to other women. This was true both for women who had a diagnostic breast imaging in the 21 months prior to screening and those who did not.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that breast cancers survivors have a smaller amount of their new breast cancers detected at mammography screening, when compare to the amount of new breast cancers detected at mammography screening among women without previous breast cancer. The lower sensitivity does not seem to be due to different behavior among breast cancer survivors.

Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Mammography has been the frontline screening tool for breast cancer for decades. However, high error rates in the form of false negatives (FNs) and false positives (FPs) have persisted despite technological improvements. Radiologists still miss between 10% and 30% of cancers while 80% of woman recalled for additional views have normal outcomes, with 40% of biopsied lesions being benign. Research show that the majority of cancers missed is actually visible and looked at, but either go unnoticed or are deemed to be benign. Causal agents for these errors include human related characteristics resulting in contributory search, perception and decision-making behaviours. Technical, patient and lesion factors are also important relating to positioning, compression, patient size, breast density and presence of breast implants as well as the nature and subtype of the cancer itself, where features such as architectural distortion and triple-negative cancers remain challenging to detect on screening. A better understanding of these causal agents as well as the adoption of technological and educational interventions, which audits reader performance and provide immediate perceptual feedback, should help. This paper reviews the current status of our knowledge around error rates in mammography and explores the factors impacting it. It also presents potential solutions for maximizing diagnostic efficacy thus benefiting the millions of women who undergo this procedure each year.

Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Follow-up examinations are commonly performed after primary treatment for women with breast cancer. They are used to detect recurrences at an early (asymptomatic) stage. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of different policies of follow-up for distant metastases on mortality, morbidity and quality of life in women treated for stage I, II or III breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this 2014 review update, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (4 July 2014), MEDLINE (4 July 2014), Embase (4 July 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 3), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (4 July 2014) and ClinicalTrials.gov (4 July 2014). References from retrieved articles were also checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different policies of follow-up after primary treatment were reviewed for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility for inclusion in the review and risk of bias. Data were pooled in an individual patient data meta-analysis for the two RCTs testing the effectiveness of different follow-up schemes. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age, tumour size and lymph node status.

MAIN RESULTS

Since 2000, one new trial has been published; the updated review now includes five RCTs involving 4023 women with breast cancer (clinical stage I, II or III).Two trials involving 2563 women compared follow-up based on clinical visits and mammography with a more intensive scheme including radiological and laboratory tests. After pooling the data, no significant differences in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15, two studies, 2563 participants, high-quality evidence), or disease-free survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00, two studies, 2563 participants, low-quality evidence) emerged. No differences in overall survival and disease-free survival emerged in subgroup analyses according to patient age, tumour size and lymph node status before primary treatment. In 1999, 10-year follow-up data became available for one trial of these trials, and no significant differences in overall survival were found. No difference was noted in quality of life measures (one study, 639 participants, high-quality evidence).The new included trial, together with a previously included trial involving 1264 women compared follow-up performed by a hospital-based specialist versus follow-up performed by general practitioners. No significant differences were noted in overall survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.78, one study, 968 participants, moderate-quality evidence), time to detection of recurrence (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.47, two studies, 1264 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and quality of life (one study, 356 participants, high-quality evidence). Patient satisfaction was greater among patients treated by general practitioners. One RCT involving 196 women compared regularly scheduled follow-up visits versus less frequent visits restricted to the time of mammography. No significant differences emerged in interim use of telephone and frequency of general practitioners's consultations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review of RCTs conducted almost 20 years ago suggests that follow-up programs based on regular physical examinations and yearly mammography alone are as effective as more intensive approaches based on regular performance of laboratory and instrumental tests in terms of timeliness of recurrence detection, overall survival and quality of life.In two RCTs, follow-up care performed by trained and not trained general practitioners working in an organised practice setting had comparable effectiveness to that delivered by hospital-based specialists in terms of overall survival, recurrence detection, and quality of life.

How do I follow patients with early breast cancer after completing adjuvant therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

With improvements in the detection and treatment of breast cancer, more women are surviving after diagnosis. Patients who complete adjuvant therapy require ongoing follow-up to manage toxicities, to detect recurrences early, and to provide ongoing physical and psychosocial support. Routine surveillance should be implemented, with attention to educating patients about symptoms of recurrence, such as weight loss, cough, and bone pain. An intensive surveillance strategy with the routine use of laboratory and radiographic studies does not improve outcomes and raises the cost of follow-up. Patients should have annual mammograms in conjunction with physical exam and history at appropriate intervals that increase the farther out patients are from treatment. Attention also should be focused on other routine health maintenance and cancer screening, such as colonoscopy, gynecologic examinations, and bone health/DEXA scans. In the early posttreatment period, medical oncologists are best equipped to follow these patients. However, as women live longer after a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, transitioning care to a primary care physician or nurse practitioner is appropriate, provided these practitioners are educated about late treatment effects and managing side effects of treatment, which may continue as long as a decade. A multidisciplinary follow-up strategy with excellent communication between providers can ensure safe, convenient, and quality care to the growing population of breast cancer survivors. As the treatment of breast cancer evolves into personalized strategies based on the biologic characteristics of individual tumors, future studies will be needed to determine if a single surveillance strategy is sufficient or if individualized surveillance based on risk can improve outcomes and costs of long-term follow-up care.

[Follow-up in patients with early breast cancer]

Breast cancer incidence remains the highest among gynaecologic neoplasms. Once they have achieved their treatments, patients should undergo careful follow-up. It aims at detecting early local recurrence or controlateral breast cancer. Based on large cohorts, clinical and radiological follow-up procedures come from guidelines realised by scientific organisations. We evaluated our regional practices in Franche-Comté and compared them to current guidelines. Patients with early breast cancer positive for hormonal receptors filled a questionnaire concerning their follow-up. It included patients treated from 1999 to 2005. When frequency of consultation is evaluated, only half of the patients undergo what is recommended. Whereas mammography and non-validated complementary exams are more regularly realised. Patients consulting more one practician have a better compliance. Our study underlines significant disparities among patients follow-up. Better interactions between physicians and a greater implication of patients in their follow-up would increase its quality.

Breast-conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

To investigate whether Radiation therapy (RT) should follow breast conserving surgery in women with ductal carcinoma in situ from breast cancer (DCIS) with objective of decreased mortality, invasive or non invasive recurrence, distant metastases and contralateral breast cancer rates. We have done a meta-analysis of these results to give a more balanced view of the total evidence and to increase statistical precision.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was performed comparing RT treatment for DCIS of breast cancer to observation. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library databases, Trial registers, bibliographic databases, and recent issues of relevant journals were searched. Relevant reports were reviewed by two reviewers independently and the references from these reports were searched for additional trials, using guidelines set by QUOROM statement criteria.

Results

The reviewers identified four large RCTs, yielding 3665 patients. Pooled results from this four randomized trials of adjuvant radiotherapy showed a significant reduction of invasive and DCIS ipsilateral breast cancer with odds ratio (OR) of 0.40 (95% CI 0.33 – 0.60, p < 0.00001) and 0.40 (95% CI 0.31 – 0.53, p < 0.00001), respectively. There was not difference in distant metastases (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.57–1.91, p = 0.38) and death rates (OR = 1.08, 95%CI 0.65 – 1.78, p = 0.45) between the two arms. There was more contralateral breast cancer after adjuvant RT (66/1711 = 3.85%) versus observation (49/1954 = 2.5%). The likelihood of contralateral breast cancer was 1.53-fold higher (95% CI 1.05 – 2.24, p = 0.03) in radiotherapy arms.

Conclusion

The conclusion from our meta-analysis is that the addition of radiation therapy to lumpectomy results in an approximately 60% reduction in breast cancer recurrence, no benefit for survival or distant metastases compared to excision alone. Patients with high-grade DCIS lesions and positive margins benefited most from the addition of radiation therapy. It is not yet clear which patients can be successfully treated with lumpectomy alone; until further prospective studies answer this question, radiation should be recommended after lumpectomy for all patients without contraindications.

Mammographic and ultrasonographic comparison between intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) and conventional external radiotherapy (RT) in limited-stage breast cancer, conservatively treated

OBJECTIVE

Assess mammographic and echographic modifications in mild cases of breast cancer (suitable for conservative surgery) after intraoperatory radio treatment (IORT) as opposed to conventional post-operative radiotherapy (RT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We report data from 45 patients in each group (IORT and RT). All patients were examined using the same mammographic and ecographic equipment at 6, 12 and 24 months after treatment. We focused on structural alterations, edema and others, and quantified them using pre-established (unbiased) protocols. Both patient examination and subsequent assessment of the results were performed by radiologists with exepertise in breast cancer evaluation.

RESULTS

At 6 months, IORT patients showed slightly more pronounced structural distortions and oedema than RT patients; these differences became more apparent at 12 months, with the addition of fat necrosis and/or calcifications. These alterations were evident and consistent under both mammographic and ecographic examination, and became even more pronounced at 24 months. At this stage, RT patients showed minimal alterations of the tissue (apart from normal post-surgical scarring), whereas IORT patients showed virtually no improvement over the preceding 12-month period.

CONCLUSION

We show radiological alterations in post-operative breast cancer are significantly more pronounced in patients treated with IORT as opposed to RT.

Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Follow-up examinations are commonly performed after primary treatment for women with breast cancer. They are used to detect recurrences at an early (asymptomatic) stage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of different policies of follow-up for distant metastases on mortality, morbidity and quality of life in women treated for stage I, II or III breast cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched, the Breast Cancer Group's specialized register (May 14, 2004), the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004), Medline (January 1966 - May 2004) and EMBASE (1988 - May 2004). References from retrieved articles were also checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different policies of follow-up after primary treatment were reviewed for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and eligibility for inclusion in the review. Data were pooled in an individual patient data meta-analysis for the two RCTs testing the effectiveness of different follow-up schemes. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age, tumour size and lymph node status.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs involving 3055 women with breast cancer (clinical stage I, II or III) were included. Two of these involving 2563 women compared follow-up based on clinical visits and mammography with a more intensive scheme including radiological and laboratory tests. After pooling the data, no significant differences in overall survival (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.15) or disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.00) emerged. No differences in overall survival and disease-free survival emerged in subgroup analyses according to patient age, tumour size and lymph node status before primary treatment. In 1999, 10-year follow-up data became available for Rosselli Del Turco and no significant differences in overall survival were found. One RCT (296 women) compared follow-up performed by a hospital-based specialist to follow-up performed by general practitioners. No significant differences in time to detection of recurrence and quality of life emerged. Patient satisfaction was greater among patients treated by general practitioners. One RCT (196 women) compared regularly scheduled follow-up visits to less frequent visits restricted to the time of mammography. No significant differences emerged in interim use of telephone and frequency of GP's consultations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review of RCTs conducted almost 20 years ago suggest that follow-up programs based on regular physical examinations and yearly mammography alone are as effective as more intensive approaches based on regular performance of laboratory and instrumental tests in terms of timeliness of recurrence detection, overall survival and quality of life. In one RCT, follow-up care performed by trained general practitioners working in an organized practice setting had comparable effectiveness to that delivered by hospital-based specialists in terms of quality of life and time to detection of distant metastases.