Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme

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.

Cohort profile of the Sloane Project: methodology for a prospective UK cohort study of >15 000 women with screen-detected non-invasive breast neoplasia

PURPOSE

The introduction of breast screening in the UK led to an increase in the detection of non-invasive breast neoplasia, predominantly ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a non-obligatory precursor of invasive breast cancer. The Sloane Project, a UK prospective cohort study of screen-detected non-invasive breast neoplasia, commenced in 2003 to evaluate the radiological assessment, surgical management, pathology, adjuvant therapy and outcomes for non-invasive breast neoplasia. Long-term follow-up and accurate data collection are essential to examine the clinical impact. Here, we describe the establishment, development and analytical processes for this large UK cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Women diagnosed with non-invasive breast neoplasia via the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) from 01 April 2003 are eligible, with a minimum age of 46 years. Diagnostic, therapeutic and follow-up data collected via proformas, complement date and cause of death from national data sources. Accrual for patients with DCIS ceased in 2012 but is ongoing for patients with epithelial atypia/in situ neoplasia, while follow-up for all continues long term.

FINDINGS TO DATE

To date, patients within the Sloane cohort comprise one-third of those diagnosed with DCIS within the NHSBSP and are representative of UK practice. DCIS has a variable outcome and confirms the need for longer-term follow-up for screen-detected DCIS. However, the radiology and pathology features of DCIS can be used to inform patient management. We demonstrate validation of follow-up information collected from national datasets against traditional, manual methods.

FUTURE PLANS

Conclusions derived from the Sloane Project are generalisable to women in the UK with screen-detected DCIS. The follow-up methodology may be extended to other UK cohort studies and routine clinical follow-up. Data from English patients entered into the Sloane Project are available on request to researchers under data sharing agreement. Annual follow-up data collection will continue for a minimum of 20 years.

Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms

This framework focuses on the importance of the consideration of the downstream intermediate and long-term health outcomes when a change to a screening program is introduced. The authors present a methodology for utilising the relationship between screen-detected and interval cancer rates to infer the benefits and harms associated with a change to the program. A review of the previous use of these measures in the literature is presented. The framework presents other aspects to consider when utilizing this methodology, and builds upon an existing framework that helps researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to consider the impacts of changes to screening programs on health outcomes. It is hoped that this research will inform future evaluative studies to assess the benefits and harms of changes to screening programs.

A randomised controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography as primary screening tests: Screening results over subsequent episodes of the Proteus Donna study

Proteus Donna is a randomised controlled trial aimed at prospectively evaluating screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), including interval cancer detection (ICD) and cancer detection (CD) in the analysis as a cumulative measure over subsequent screening episodes. Consenting women aged 46 to 68 attending the regional Breast Screening Service were randomly assigned to conventional digital mammography (DM, control arm) or DBT in addition to DM (DBT, study arm). At the subsequent round all participants underwent DM. Thirty-six months follow-up allowed for the identification of cancers detected in the subsequent screening and interscreening interval. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. Cumulative CD and Nelson-Aalen incidence were analysed over the follow-up period. Between 31 December 2014 and 31 December 2017, 43 022 women were randomised to DM and 30 844 to DBT. At baseline, CD was significantly higher (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.21-1.71) in the study arm. ICD did not differ significantly between the two arms (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.62-1.35). At subsequent screening with DM, the CD was lower (nearly significant) in the study arm (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.06). Over the follow-up period, the cumulative CD (comprehensive of ICD) was slightly higher in the study arm (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.31). The Nelson-Aalen cumulative incidence over time remained significantly higher in the study arm for approximately 24 months. Benign lesions detection was higher in the study arm at baseline and lower at subsequent tests. Outcomes are consistent with a lead time gain of DBT compared to DM, with an increase in false positives and moderate overdiagnosis.

Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs

OBJECTIVES

Tomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to be more sensitive than digital mammography, but it requires longer reading time. We retrospectively compared accuracy and reading times of a simplified protocol with 1-cm-thick slabs versus a standard protocol of slabs + 1-mm-spaced planes, both integrated with synthetic 2D.

METHODS

We randomly selected 894 DBTs (including 12 cancers) from the experimental arm of the RETomo trial. DBTs were read by two radiologists to estimate specificity. A second set of 24 cancers (8 also present in the first set) mixed within 276 negative DBTs was read by two radiologists. In total, 28 cancers with 64 readings were used to estimate sensitivity. Radiologists read with both protocols separated by a 3-month washout. Only women that were positive at the screening reading were assessed. Variance was estimated taking into account repeated measures.

RESULTS

Sensitivity was 82.8% (53/64, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 67.2-92.2) and 90.6% (95% CI 80.2-95.8) with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. In the random screening setting, specificity was 97.9% (1727/1764, 95% CI 97.1-98.5) and 96.3% (95% CI 95.3-97.1), respectively. Inter-reader agreement was 0.68 and 0.54 with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. Median reading times with simplified protocol were 20% to 30% shorter than with standard protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

A simplified protocol reduced reading time and false positives but may have a negative impact on sensitivity.

KEY POINTS

• The adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in screening, more sensitive than mammography, could be limited by its potential effect on the radiologists' workload, i.e., increased reading time and fatigue. • A DBT simplified protocol with slab only, compared to a standard protocol (slab plus planes) both integrated with synthetic 2D, reduced time and false positives but had a negative impact on sensitivity.

Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study

Purpose To determine whether low levels of recall lead to increased interval cancers and the magnitude of this effect. Materials and Methods The authors retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme during a 36-month period (April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2008), with 3-year follow-up in women aged 50-70 years. Data on recall, cancers detected at screening, and interval cancers were available for each of the 84 breast screening units and for each year (n = 252). The association between interval cancers and recalls was modeled by using Poisson regression on aggregated data and according to age (5-year intervals) and screening type (prevalent vs incident). Results The authors analyzed 5 126 689 screening episodes, demonstrating an average recall to assessment rate (RAR) of 4.56% (range, 1.64%-8.42%; standard deviation, 1.15%), cancer detection rate of 8.1 per 1000 women screened, and interval cancer rate (ICR) of 3.1 per 1000 women screened. Overall, a significant negative association was found between RAR and ICR (Poisson regression coefficient: -0.039 [95% confidence interval: -0.062, -0.017]; P = .001), with approximately one fewer interval cancer for every additional 80-84 recalls. Subgroup analysis revealed similar negative correlations in women aged 50-54 years (P = .002), 60-64 years (P = .01), and 65-69 years (P = .008) as well as in incident screens (P = .001) and prevalent screens (P = .04). No significant relationship was found in women aged 55-59 years (P = .46). Conclusion There was a statistically significant negative correlation between RAR and ICR, which suggests the merit of a minimum threshold for RAR. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Role of performance metrics in breast screening imaging - where are we and where should we be?

The NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) was started in 1988 and is a large, organised cancer screening programme. It is delivered by 80 services across England and screens over 2 million women each year. As a screening programme, it must balance the detection of cancers against possible harm to women who do not have cancer. The NHSBSP was therefore designed with detailed information gathering and performance metrics right from the start. In this review paper, we examine how performance metrics in screening mammography have improved the national screening programme and the further developments and challenges that are expected in the years to come.

Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening

Background

Between 2003 and 2010 digital mammography (DM) gradually replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (BCSP). Previous studies showed increases in detection rate (DR) after the transition to DM. However, national interval cancer rates (ICR) have not yet been reported.

Methods

We assessed programme sensitivity and specificity during the transition period to DM, analysing nationwide data on screen-detected and interval cancers. Data of 7.3 million screens in women aged 49–74, between 2004 and 2011, were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to obtain data on interval cancers. Age-adjusted DRs, ICRs and recall rates (RR) per 1000 screens and programme sensitivity and specificity were calculated by year, age and screening modality.

Results

41,662 screen-detected and 16,160 interval cancers were analysed. The DR significantly increased from 5.13 (95% confidence interval (CI):5.00–5.30) in 2004 to 6.34 (95% CI:6.15–6.47) in 2011, for both in situ (2004:0.73;2011:1.24) and invasive cancers (2004:4.42;2011:5.07), whereas the ICR remained stable (2004: 2.16 (95% CI2.06–2.25);2011: 2.13 (95% CI:2.04–2.22)). The RR changed significantly from 14.0 to 21.4. Programme sensitivity significantly increased, mainly between ages 49–59, from 70.0% (95% CI:68.9–71.2) to 74.4% (95% CI:73.5–75.4) whereas specificity slightly declined (2004:99.1% (95% CI:99.09–99.13);2011:98.5% (95% CI:98.45–98.50)). The overall DR was significantly higher for DM than for SFM (6.24;5.36) as was programme sensitivity (73.6%;70.1%), the ICR was similar (2.19;2.20) and specificity was significantly lower for DM (98.5%;98.9%).

Conclusions

During the transition from SFM to DM, there was a significant rise in DR and a stable ICR, leading to increased programme sensitivity. Although the recall rate increased, programme specificity remained high compared to other countries. These findings indicate that the performance of DM in a nationwide screening programme is not inferior to, and may be even better, than that of SFM.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4122-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening

An interval breast cancer is a cancer that emerges following a negative mammographic screen. This overview describes the epidemiology, and the radiological and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening. Notwithstanding possible differences in ascertainment of interval breast cancers, there was broad variability in reported interval breast cancer rates (range 7.0 to 49.3 per 10,000 screens) reflecting heterogeneity in underlying breast cancer rates, screening rounds (initial or repeat screens), and the length and phase of the inter-screening interval. The majority of studies (based on biennial screening) reported interval breast cancer rates in the range of 8.4 to 21.1 per 10,000 screens spanning the two-year interval with the larger proportion occurring in the second year. Despite methodological limitations inherent in radiological surveillance (retrospective mammographic review) of interval breast cancers, this form of surveillance consistently reveals that the majority of interval cancers represent either true interval or occult cancers that were not visible on the index mammographic screen; approximately 20–25% of interval breast cancers are classified as having been missed (false-negatives). The biological characteristics of interval breast cancers show that they have relatively worse tumour prognostic characteristics and biomarker profile, and also survival outcomes, than screen-detected breast cancers; however, they have similar characteristics and prognosis as breast cancers occurring in non-screened women. There was limited evidence on the effect on interval breast cancer frequency and outcomes following transition from film to digital mammography screening.

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Age-specific effects of mammographic screening, and the timing of such effects, are a matter of debate. The results of the UK Age trial, which compared the effect of invitation to annual mammographic screening from age 40 years with commencement of screening at age 50 years on breast cancer mortality, have been reported at 10 years of follow-up and showed no significant difference in mortality between the trial groups. Here, we report the results of the UK Age trial after 17 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Women aged 39-41 from 23 UK NHS Breast Screening Programme units years were randomly assigned by individual randomisation (1:2) to either an intervention group offered annual screening by mammography up to and including the calendar year of their 48th birthday or to a control group receiving usual medical care (invited for screening at age 50 years and every 3 years thereafter). Both groups were stratified by general practice. We compared breast cancer incidence and mortality by time since randomisation. Analyses included all women randomly assigned who could be traced with the National Health Service Central Register and who had not died or emigrated before entry. The primary outcome measures were mortality from breast cancer (defined as deaths with breast cancer coded as the underlying cause of death) and breast cancer incidence, including in-situ, invasive, and total incidence. Because there is an interest in the timing of the mortality effect, we analysed the results in different follow-up periods. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN24647151.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 14, 1990, and Sept 25, 1997, 160 921 participants were randomly assigned; 53 883 women in the intervention group and 106 953 assigned to usual medical care were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 17 years (IQR 16·8-18·8), the rate ratio (RR) for breast cancer mortality was 0·88 (95% CI 0·74-1·04) from tumours diagnosed during the intervention phase. A significant reduction in breast cancer mortality was noted in the intervention group compared with the control group in the first 10 years after diagnosis (RR 0·75, 0·58-0·97) but not thereafter (RR 1·02, 0·80-1·30) from tumours diagnosed during the intervention phase. The overall breast cancer incidence during 17 year follow-up was similar between the intervention group and the control group (RR 0·98, 0·93-1·04).

INTERPRETATION

Our results support an early reduction in mortality from breast cancer with annual mammography screening in women aged 40-49 years. Further data are needed to fully understand long-term effects. Cumulative incidence figures suggest at worst a small amount of overdiagnosis.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the American Cancer Society. Past funding was received from the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the UK Department of Health, and the US National Cancer Institute.