A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening

Estimation of Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis in a U.S. Breast Screening Cohort

BACKGROUND

Mammography screening can lead to overdiagnosis-that is, screen-detected breast cancer that would not have caused symptoms or signs in the remaining lifetime. There is no consensus about the frequency of breast cancer overdiagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the rate of breast cancer overdiagnosis in contemporary mammography practice accounting for the detection of nonprogressive cancer.

DESIGN

Bayesian inference of the natural history of breast cancer using individual screening and diagnosis records, allowing for nonprogressive preclinical cancer. Combination of fitted natural history model with life-table data to predict the rate of overdiagnosis among screen-detected cancer under biennial screening.

SETTING

Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 50 to 74 years at first mammography screen between 2000 and 2018.

MEASUREMENTS

Screening mammograms and screen-detected or interval breast cancer.

RESULTS

The cohort included 35 986 women, 82 677 mammograms, and 718 breast cancer diagnoses. Among all preclinical cancer cases, 4.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 0.1% to 14.8%) were estimated to be nonprogressive. In a program of biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years, 15.4% (UI, 9.4% to 26.5%) of screen-detected cancer cases were estimated to be overdiagnosed, with 6.1% (UI, 0.2% to 20.1%) due to detecting indolent preclinical cancer and 9.3% (UI, 5.5% to 13.5%) due to detecting progressive preclinical cancer in women who would have died of an unrelated cause before clinical diagnosis.

LIMITATIONS

Exclusion of women with first mammography screen outside BCSC.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of an authoritative U.S. population data set, the analysis projected that among biennially screened women aged 50 to 74 years, about 1 in 7 cases of screen-detected cancer is overdiagnosed. This information clarifies the risk for breast cancer overdiagnosis in contemporary screening practice and should facilitate shared and informed decision making about mammography screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Overdiagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: Prevented by guidelines?

Overdiagnosis refers to detection of disease that would not otherwise become clinically apparent during a patient's lifetime. Overdiagnosis is common and has been reported for several cancer types, although there are few studies describing its prevalence in HCC surveillance programs. Overdiagnosis can have serious negative consequences including overtreatment and associated complications, financial toxicity, and psychological harms related to being labeled with a cancer diagnosis. Overdiagnosis can occur for several different reasons including inaccurate diagnostic criteria, detection of premalignant or very early malignant lesions, detection of indolent tumors, and competing risks of mortality. The risk of overdiagnosis is partly mitigated, albeit not eliminated, by several guideline recommendations, including definitions for the at-risk population in whom surveillance should be performed, surveillance modalities, surveillance interval, recall procedures, and HCC diagnostic criteria. Continued research is needed to further characterize the burden and trends of overdiagnosis as well as identify strategies to reduce overdiagnosis in the future.

How do people understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

RATIONALE

The public should be informed about overtesting and overdiagnosis. Diverse qualitative studies have examined public understandings of this information. A synthesis was needed to systematise the body of evidence and yield new, generalisable insights.

AIM

Synthesise data from qualitative studies exploring patient and public understanding of overtesting and overdiagnosis.

METHODS

We searched Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases from inception to March 18, 2020. We included published English-language primary studies exploring the perspectives of patients/the public about overtesting/overdiagnosis from any setting, year and relating to any condition. Only qualitative parts of mixed-methods studies were synthesised. We excluded studies that only examined overtreatment or sampled people with specialised medical knowledge. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the CASP tool, and assessed confidence in the synthesis findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Data was analysed using thematic meta-synthesis, utilising descriptive and interpretive methods.

RESULTS

We synthesised data from 21 studies, comprising 1638 participants, from 2754 unique records identified. We identified six descriptive themes, all graded as moderate confidence (indicating they are likely to reasonably represent the available evidence): i) high confidence in screening and testing; ii) difficulty in understanding overuse; iii) acceptance that overuse can be harmful; iv) rejection or problematisation of overuse; v) limited impacts of overuse information on intended test and screening uptake; vi) desire for information and shared decision-making regarding overuse. The descriptive themes were underpinned by two analytic themes: i) perceived intrinsic value of information and information gathering, and; ii) differences in comprehension and acceptance of overuse concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified novel and important insights about how lay people interpret overuse concepts. It will guide the development of more effective public messages about overuse, highlighting the importance of interpretative frameworks in these communications.

Surgery for Good Prognosis Breast Cancers

Purpose of Review

The introduction of mammographic screening programmes has resulted increasing numbers of women with small breast cancers with biologically favourable characteristics. Many of these cancers may represent overdiagnosis, with a resulting treatment burden for women and healthcare costs for providers. Here, current surgical approaches to the treatment of such tumours are reviewed, together with alternative approaches to their management.

Recent Findings

The surgical treatment of small, screen-detected breast cancers with biologically favourable characteristics has been extrapolated from the management of symptomatic breast cancers. There is no prospective randomised evidence for conventional open surgery compared with other approaches in this setting. A number of minimally invasive techniques, most notable vacuum-assisted excision, have been described for the management of these tumours, but at present, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support their routine use. There are currently ongoing randomised trials evaluating risk-adapted surgical and minimally invasive approaches to the management of good prognosis disease.

Summary

It is possible that the surgical treatment of good prognosis screen-detected breast cancers may be de-escalated. However, high-quality evidence from ongoing prospective randomised trials will be required in order to change clinical practice.

Lifting the fog of confusion about breast cancer screening guidelines: Surprise - it's about the money!

Large amounts of misinformation denigrating the benefits of breast cancer screening have been published over the past 50 years and continue to be published. Each effort to reduce breast cancer screening has been refuted, scientifically, but the efforts continue. The motivation has been unclear until the recent guidelines issued by the American Society of Breast Surgeons who support annual screening starting at the age of 40 contrasted with the American College of Physicians who advocated delaying screening until the age of 50 and then biennially. An analysis of the facts can only lead to the conclusion that delayed screening has been chosen to save money rather than lives.

Overview of Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

Screening mammography saves lives. The mainstay of screening has been mammography. Multiple alternative options, however, for supplemental imaging are now available. Some are just improved anatomic delineation whereas others include physiology added to anatomy. A third group (molecular imaging) is purely physiologic. This article describes and compares the available options and for which patient populations they should be used.

Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model

Importance

The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources.

Objective

To assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening.

Design, Setting, and Population

A life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective.

Interventions

The modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year.

Results

The risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

Not offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening.

Differences in Breast Cancer Characteristics by Mammography Screening Participation or Non-Participation

BACKGROUND

The goal of the German Mammography Screening Program (MSP) is to enable the early detection and less intensive treatment of breast cancer. We compared tumor characteristics and prognostic markers in breast cancers that were detected by screening in the MSP, in the interval after a negative screening, or among non-participants in screening.

METHODS

This retrospective series includes all of the 1531 cases of invasive and in situ breast cancer (DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ) that were newly diagnosed in two certified breast care centers in Münster in the period 2006-2012 among women in the MSP target population. Complete information on the tumor characteristics, tumor biology, and primary surgical treatment were available for all cases. The mode of cancer detection was determined from the state cancer registry of North Rhine-Westphalia. Due to the retrospective design of this case series, there was no randomized allocation.

RESULTS

The 874 cases of breast cancer among MSP participants (714 detected by screening, 160 in the interval after a negative screen) and the 657 cases among non-participants arose in women of similar age (mean, 60.2 versus 59.3 years). MSP participants with breast cancer had DCIS more commonly than non-participants did (23% versus 13%); invasive carcinomas were smaller (74% versus 55% in the T1 stage), less commonly node-positive (25% versus 31%), less commonly high-grade (19% versus 27%), and less commonly triple-negative (7% versus 12%); MSP participants received neoadjuvant treatment less frequently (2% versus 8%) and more frequently underwent breast-conserving surgery (75% versus 62%). They less commonly had a guideline-based indication for adjuvant chemotherapy (46% versus 52%).

CONCLUSION

MSP participants with invasive breast cancer can generally be treated with less intensive surgical and systemic therapy than non-participants, even if interval cancers are also taken into account. Future studies should also investigate quality of life after a diagnosis of invasive carcinoma in screening participants.

Evaluating different breast tumor progression models using screening data

Background

Mammography screening is used to detect breast cancer at an early treatable stage, reducing breast cancer mortality. Traditionally, breast cancer has been seen as a disease with only progressive lesions, and here we examine the validity of this assumption by testing if incidence levels after introducing mammography screening can be reproduced assuming only progressive tumors.

Methods

Breast cancer incidence data 1990–2009 obtained from the initially screened Norwegian counties (Akershus, Oslo, Rogaland and Hordaland) was included, covering the time-period before, during and after the introduction of mammography screening. From 1996 women aged 50–69 were invited for biennial public screening. Using estimates of tumor growth and screening sensitivity based on pre-screening and prevalence screening data (1990–1998), we simulated incidence levels during the following period (1999–2009).

Results

The simulated incidence levels during the period with repeated screenings were markedly below the observed levels. The results were robust to changes in model parameters. Adjusting for hormone replacement therapy use, we obtained levels closer to the observed levels. However, there was still a marked gap, and only by assuming some tumors that undergo regressive changes or enter a markedly less detectable state, was our model able to reproduce the observed incidence levels.

Conclusions

Models with strictly progressive tumors are only able to partly explain the changes in incidence levels observed after screening introduction in the initially screened Norwegian counties. More complex explanations than a time shift in detection of future clinical cancers seem to be needed to reproduce the incidence trends, questioning the basis for many over-diagnosis calculations. As data are not randomized, similar studies in other populations are wanted to exclude effect of unknown confounders.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4130-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Breast cancer screening: Where have we been and where are we going? A personal perspective based on history, data and experience

It is important to understand the history of breast cancer screening to better understand the continuing effort to reduce access to screening. Since the randomized, controlled trials have shown a statistically significant mortality reduction for women ages 40-74, the appropriate threshold for initiating screening is age 40 with no data to support the use of the age of 50 as a threshold for screening. All women are at risk for developing breast cancer and all women should have access to screening.

The Breast Cancer Screening "Arcade" and the "Whack-A-Mole" Efforts to Reduce Access to Screening

The effort to reduce access to breast cancer screening has been going on for decades. As each piece of misinformation has been published, scientific responses have exposed the fallacies, but then new "alternative facts" are generated. The effort has been compared to the arcade game "Whack-a-Mole" in which one false argument is addressed only to have a new one "pop up" to replace it. This has ranged from the false claim that early detection would have no effect on breast cancer, to the fallacious idea that early detection was leading to early deaths among young women, to the more recent false suggestion that tens of thousands of breast cancers found by mammography would disappear if left undetected. The following is a short review of a number of nonscientifically derived "Moles" that have been "Whacked" by science.

The impact of overdiagnosis on the selection of efficient lung cancer screening strategies

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently updated their national lung screening guidelines and recommended low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer (LC) screening through age 80. However, the risk of overdiagnosis among older populations is a concern. Using four comparative models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, we evaluate the overdiagnosis of the screening program recommended by USPSTF in the U.S. 1950 birth cohort. We estimate the number of LC deaths averted by screening (D) per overdiagnosed case (O), yielding the ratio D/O, to quantify the trade-off between the harms and benefits of LDCT. We analyze 576 hypothetical screening strategies that vary by age, smoking, and screening frequency and evaluate efficient screening strategies that maximize the D/O ratio and other metrics including D and life-years gained (LYG) per overdiagnosed case. The estimated D/O ratio for the USPSTF screening program is 2.85 (model range: 1.5-4.5) in the 1950 birth cohort, implying LDCT can prevent ∼3 LC deaths per overdiagnosed case. This D/O ratio increases by 22% when the program stops screening at an earlier age 75 instead of 80. Efficiency frontier analysis shows that while the most efficient screening strategies that maximize the mortality reduction (D) irrespective of overdiagnosis screen through age 80, screening strategies that stop at age 75 versus 80 produce greater efficiency in increasing life-years gained per overdiagnosed case. Given the risk of overdiagnosis with LC screening, the stopping age of screening merits further consideration when balancing benefits and harms.

Evidence for Detection Bias by Medication Use in a Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Survivors

In previous studies, we found modestly decreased and increased risks of second breast cancer events with the use of statins and antibiotics, respectively, after adjustment for surveillance mammography. We evaluated detection bias by comparing receipt of surveillance mammography among users of these 2 disparate classes of medication. Adult women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer during 1990-2008 (n = 3,965) while enrolled in an integrated health-care plan (Group Health Cooperative; Washington State) were followed for up to 10 years in the Commonly Used Medications and Breast Cancer Outcomes (COMBO) Study. Categories of antibiotic use included infrequent (1-3 dispensings/12 months) and frequent (≥4 dispensings/12 months) use, and categories of statin use included less adherent (1 dispensing/6 months) and adherent (≥2 dispensings/6 months). We examined associations between medication use and surveillance mammography using multivariable generalized estimating equations and evaluated the impact of adjusting for surveillance within Cox proportional hazard models. Frequent antibiotic users were less likely to receive surveillance mammography (odds ratio (OR) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82, 0.99) than were nonusers; no association was found among infrequent users (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.03). Adherent statin use was associated with more surveillance compared with nonuse (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.25), but less adherent statin use was not (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.31). No difference in associations between medications of interest and second breast cancer events was observed when surveillance was removed from otherwise adjusted models. The influence of detection bias by medication use warrants further exploration.

More misinformation on breast cancer screening

Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has accumulated in the breast cancer screening literature that is based on flawed analyses in an effort to reduce access to screening. Quite remarkably, much of this has come from publications in previously highly respected medical journals. In several papers the intervention (mammography screening) is faulted yet the analyses provided no data on who participated in mammography screening, and which cancers were detected by mammography screening. It is remarkable that a highly respected journal can fault an intervention with no data on the intervention. Claims of massive over diagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to breast cancer screening have been made using "guesses" that have no scientific basis. No one has ever seen a mammographically detected, invasive breast cancer, disappear on its own, yet analysts have claimed that this occurs thousands of times each year. In fact, the" miraculous" resolution, without intervention, of a handful of breast cancers have all been palpable cancers, yet there is no suggestion to stop treating palpable cancers. A review of several publications in the New England Journal of Medicine shows some of the flaws in these analyses. There is clearly a problem with peer review that is allowing scientifically unsupportable material, which is misleading women and their physicians, to be published in prestigious journals.

Missteps in Current Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis

The balance between the benefits and harms of imaging-based cancer screening continues to be an area of controversy and widespread media attention. Of the potential harms, overdiagnosis from screening is likely the most elusive in estimating and quantifying. This article describes the major methodological issues with recently reported estimates of overdiagnosis that are based on excess cancer incidence, and suggests that modeling focused on tumor lead-time can serve as a complementary method for excess incidence-based overdiagnosis estimates. Radiologists should be conversant on the topic of overdiagnosis and understand the limitations of different methods used to estimate its magnitude.

Overdiagnosis of breast cancer in population screening: does it make breast screening worthless?

The risk of breast cancer (BC) overdiagnosis attributed to mammography screening is an unresolved issue, complicated by heterogeneity in the methodology of quantifying its magnitude, and both political and scientific elements surrounding interpretation of the evidence on this phenomenon. Evidence from randomized trials and also from observational studies shows that mammography screening reduces the risk of BC death; similarly, these studies provide sufficient evidence that overdiagnosis represents a serious harm from population breast screening. For both these outcomes of screening, BC mortality reduction and overdiagnosis, estimates of magnitude vary between studies however overdiagnosis estimates are associated with substantial uncertainty. The trade-off between the benefit and the collective harms of BC screening, including false-positives and overdiagnosis, is more finely balanced than initially recognized, however the snapshot of evidence presented on overdiagnosis does not mean that breast screening is worthless. Future efforts should be directed towards (a) ensuring that any changes in the implementation of BC screening optimize the balance between benefit and harms, including assessing how planned or actual changes modify the risk of overdiagnosis; (b) informing women of all the outcomes that may affect them when they participate in screening using well-crafted and balanced information; and (c) investing in research that will help define and reduce the ensuing overtreatment of screen-detected BC.

Conditions for Valid Empirical Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis in Randomized Trials and Population Studies

Cancer overdiagnosis is frequently estimated using the excess incidence in a screened group relative to that in an unscreened group. However, conditions for unbiased estimation are poorly understood. We developed a mathematical framework to project the effects of screening on the incidence of relevant cancers-that is, cancers that would present clinically without screening. Screening advances the date of diagnosis for a fraction of preclinical relevant cancers. Which diagnoses are advanced and by how much depends on the preclinical detectable period, test sensitivity, and screening patterns. Using the model, we projected incidence in common trial designs and population settings and compared excess incidence with true overdiagnosis. In trials with no control arm screening, unbiased estimates are available using cumulative incidence if the screen arm stops screening and using annual incidence if the screen arm continues screening. In both designs, unbiased estimation requires waiting until screening stabilizes plus the maximum preclinical period. In continued-screen trials and population settings, excess cumulative incidence is persistently biased. We investigated this bias in published estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer after 9-13 years. In conclusion, no trial or population setting automatically permits unbiased estimation of overdiagnosis; sufficient follow-up and appropriate analysis remain crucial.

The Changing World of Breast Cancer: A Radiologist's Perspective

Compared with other fields of medicine, there is hardly an area that has seen such fast development as the world of breast cancer. Indeed, the way we treat breast cancer has changed fundamentally over the past decades. Breast imaging has always been an integral part of this change, and it undergoes constant adjustment to new ways of thinking. This relates not only to the technical tools we use for diagnosing breast cancer but also to the way diagnostic information is used to guide treatment. There is a constant change of concepts for and attitudes toward breast cancer, and a constant flux of new ideas, new treatment approaches, and new insights into the molecular and biological behavior of this disease. Clinical breast radiologists and even more so, clinician scientists, interested in breast imaging need to keep abreast with this rapidly changing world. Diagnostic or treatment approaches that are considered useful today may be abandoned tomorrow. Approaches that seem irrelevant or far too extravagant today may prove clinically useful and adequate next year. Radiologists must constantly question what they do, and align their clinical aims and research objectives with the changing needs of contemporary breast oncology. Moreover, knowledge about the past helps better understand present debates and controversies. Accordingly, in this article, we provide an overview on the evolution of breast imaging and breast cancer treatment, describe current areas of research, and offer an outlook regarding the years to come.

Comparative safety of diabetes medications and risk of incident invasive breast cancer: a population-based cohort study

PURPOSE

Growing evidence suggests that certain commonly used diabetes medications have the potential to differentially alter breast cancer risk. We evaluated the influence of metformin, insulin, and sulfonylureas on risk of incident invasive breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women ≥40 years of age enrolled in a health plan between 1996 and 2011. Ever, current (≤12 months), and duration (<1, 1-2.9, ≥3 years) of diabetes medication use were obtained from pharmacy databases and modeled as time varying. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for potential confounders including screening mammography and body mass index were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 10,050 women with diabetes, 57 % used metformin, 43 % used sulfonylureas, 32 % used insulin, and 301 were diagnosed with breast cancer over median follow-up of 6.7 years. Results suggested no significant decreased risk of breast cancer among metformin users (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.65-1.12). We found no association between increased breast cancer risk and long-acting insulin (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.51-1.77), but reduced risk with short-/rapid-acting insulin (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.94), and suggestion of a dose-response with increasing duration of short-/rapid-acting insulin use (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-1.00). Estimates for sulfonylurea users suggested increased risk with ever use (HR 1.18; 95% CI 0.90-1.53) and with longer durations of use (≥3 years: HR 1.23; 95% CI 0.88-1.73), but confidence intervals included 1.0.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide little support for the previously hypothesized decreased risk of breast cancer with metformin use or for an increased risk with insulin use. Implications for possible residual confounding by screening mammography and comorbidity should be considered in breast cancer pharmacoepidemiology studies.

The Role of Intraoperative Pathologic Assessment in the Surgical Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

BACKGROUND

Re-excision surgeries for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) put a strain on patients and healthcare resources; however, intraoperative pathologic assessment of DCIS may lead to a reduction in these additional surgeries. This study examined the relationship between intraoperative pathologic assessment and subsequent operations in patients with a diagnosis of DCIS.

METHODS

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare patients diagnosed with DCIS from 1999 to 2007 who initially underwent partial mastectomy, without axillary surgery, were included in this study. Use of intraoperative frozen section or touch preparation during the initial surgery was assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to describe the relationship between the use of intraoperative pathologic assessment and any subsequent mastectomy or partial mastectomy within 90 days of the initial partial mastectomy.

RESULTS

Of 8259 DCIS patients, 3509 (43 %) required a second surgery, and intraoperative pathologic assessment was performed for 2186 (26 %). Intraoperative pathologic assessment had no statistically significant effect on whether or not a subsequent breast surgery occurred (adjusted odds ratio 1.07, 95 % confidence interval 0.95-1.21; p = 0.293). Patient residence in a rural area, tumor size ≥2 cm, and poorly differentiated tumor grade were associated with a greater likelihood of subsequent surgery, while age 80 years and older was associated with a lower likelihood of subsequent surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of intraoperative frozen section or touch preparation during partial mastectomy from 1999 to 2007 was not associated with a reduction in subsequent breast operations in women with DCIS. These results highlight the need to identify cost-effective tools and strategies to reduce the need for additional surgery in patients with DCIS.

Recognizing the Limitations of Cancer Overdiagnosis Studies: A First Step Towards Overcoming Them

Numerous studies have attempted to quantify the number of breast cancers that would never have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Unfortunately, results are highly variable across studies and there is considerable disagreement about both the frequency of overdiagnosis and the validity of different methodologic approaches. In this Commentary, we review limitations of the two major approaches used in existing studies. Studies that use excess incidence as a proxy for overdiagnosis require a valid estimate of incidence in the absence of screening and sufficient follow-up to ensure the excess excludes relevant (ie, nonoverdiagnosed) cancers detected early. The requirement of sufficient follow-up applies to both population studies and clinical trials, but only certain clinical trial designs have the potential to yield unbiased results. Studies that model disease natural history to infer overdiagnosis must, in addition, examine whether their models produce valid estimates in the presence of nonprogressive cases. In this setting, limited follow-up could lead to a lack of identifiability of the parameters needed to accurately infer overdiagnosis. In a polarized research community, the excess incidence and modeling approaches are generally viewed as competitors, but we argue that they are complementary, with models being more complex but having greater potential to inform about disease natural history and the outcomes of candidate screening policies. Rather than arguing why one approach should be preferred to another, investigators should focus on developing studies that generate reliable estimates of overdiagnosis. Recognizing that both approaches have limitations, which existing studies rarely overcome, is a first step towards reconciling methodologic perspectives and achieving consensus about the real magnitude of the overdiagnosis problem.

The Effect of Treatment Advances on the Mortality Results of Breast Cancer Screening Trials: A Microsimulation Model

BACKGROUND

Mammography trials, which are the primary sources of evidence for screening benefit, were conducted decades ago. Whether advances in systemic therapies have rendered previously observed benefits of screening less significant is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of breast cancer screening trials had they been conducted using contemporary systemic treatments with outcomes of trials conducted with previously used treatments.

DESIGN

Computer simulation model of 3 virtual screening trials with similar reductions in advanced-stage cancer cases but reflecting treatment patterns in 1975 (prechemotherapy era), 1999, or 2015 (treatment according to receptor status).

DATA SOURCES

Meta-analyses of screening and treatment trials; study of dissemination of primary systemic treatments; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry.

TARGET POPULATION

U.S. women aged 50 to 74 years.

TIME HORIZON

10 and 25 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Population.

INTERVENTION

Mammography, chemotherapy, tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and trastuzumab.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Breast cancer mortality rate ratio (MRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) obtained by the difference in cumulative breast cancer mortality between control and screening groups.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

At 10 years, screening in a 1975 trial yielded an MRR of 90% and an ARR of 5 deaths per 10,000 women. A 2015 screening trial yielded a 10-year MRR of 90% and an ARR of 3 deaths per 10,000 women.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Greater reductions in advanced-stage disease yielded a greater screening effect, but MRRs remained similar across trials. However, ARRs were consistently lower under contemporary treatments. When contemporary treatments were available only for early-stage cases, the MRR was 88%.

LIMITATION

Disease models simplify reality and cannot capture all breast cancer subtypes.

CONCLUSION

Advances in systemic therapies for breast cancer have not substantively reduced the relative benefits of screening but have likely reduced the absolute benefits because of their positive effect on breast cancer survival.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

University of Washington and National Cancer Institute.

Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.

DESIGN

Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.

SETTING

United States.

PATIENTS

Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.

INTERVENTION

Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.

MEASUREMENTS

Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.

RESULTS

Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.

LIMITATION

Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.

CONCLUSION

Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Impact of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality

The degree to which observed reductions in breast cancer mortality is attributable to screening mammography has become increasingly controversial. We examined this issue with three fundamentally different approaches: (i) Chronology--the temporal relationship of the onset of breast cancer mortality decline and the national implementation of screening mammography; (ii) Magnitude--the degree to which breast cancer mortality declined relative to the amount (penetration) of screening mammography; (iii) Analogy--the pattern of mortality rate reductions of other cancers for which population screening is not conducted. Chronology and magnitude were assessed with data from Europe and North America, with three methods applied to magnitude. A comparison of eight countries in Europe and North America does not demonstrate a correlation between the penetration of national screening and either the chronology or magnitude of national breast cancer mortality reduction. In the United States, the magnitude of the mortality decline is greater in the unscreened, younger women than in the screened population and regional variation in the rate of breast cancer mortality reduction is not correlated with screening penetrance, either as self-reported or by the magnitude of screening-induced increase in early-stage disease. Analogy analysis of United States data identifies 14 other cancers with a similar distinct onset of mortality reduction for which screening is not performed. These five lines of evidence from three different approaches and additional observations discussed do not support the hypothesis that mammography screening is a primary reason for the breast cancer mortality reduction in Europe and North America.

Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective

After some decades of contention, one can almost despair and conclude that (paraphrasing) "the mammography debate you will have with you always." Against that sentiment, in this review I argue, after reflecting on some of the major themes of this long-standing debate, that we must begin to move beyond the narrow borders of claim and counterclaim to seek consensus on what the balance of methodologically sound and critically appraised evidence demonstrates, and also to find overlooked underlying convergences; after acknowledging the reality of some residual and non-trivial harms from mammography, to promote effective strategies for harm mitigation; and to encourage deployment of new screening modalities that will render many of the issues and concerns in the debate obsolete. To these ends, I provide a sketch of what this looking forward and beyond the current debate might look like, leveraging advantages from abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging technologies (such as the ultrafast and twist protocols) and from digital breast tomosynthesis-also known as three-dimensional mammography. I also locate the debate within the broader context of mammography in the real world as it plays out not for the disputants, but for the stakeholders themselves: the screening-eligible patients and the physicians in the front lines who are charged with enabling both the acts of screening and the facts of screening at their maximally objective and patient-accessible levels to facilitate informed decisions.

Breast cancer screening controversies: who, when, why, and how?

Mammographic screening is effective in reducing mortality from breast cancer. The issue is not whether mammography is effective, but whether the false positive rate and false negative rates can be reduced. This review will discuss controversies including the reduction in breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, the ideal screening candidate, and the optimal imaging modality for breast cancer screening. The article will compare and contrast screening mammography, tomosynthesis, whole-breast screening ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and molecular breast imaging. Though supplemental imaging modalities are being utilized to improve breast cancer diagnosis, mammography still remains the gold standard for breast cancer screening.

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2011, Featuring Incidence of Breast Cancer Subtypes by Race/Ethnicity, Poverty, and State

BACKGROUND

The American Cancer Society (ACS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Cancer Institute (NCI), and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) collaborate annually to produce updated, national cancer statistics. This Annual Report includes a focus on breast cancer incidence by subtype using new, national-level data.

METHODS

Population-based cancer trends and breast cancer incidence by molecular subtype were calculated. Breast cancer subtypes were classified using tumor biomarkers for hormone receptor (HR) and human growth factor-neu receptor (HER2) expression.

RESULTS

Overall cancer incidence decreased for men by 1.8% annually from 2007 to 2011 [corrected]. Rates for women were stable from 1998 to 2011. Within these trends there was racial/ethnic variation, and some sites have increasing rates. Among children, incidence rates continued to increase by 0.8% per year over the past decade while, like adults, mortality declined. HR+/HER2- breast cancers, the subtype with the best prognosis, were the most common for all races/ethnicities with highest rates among non-Hispanic white women, local stage cases, and low poverty areas (92.7, 63.51, and 98.69 per 100000 non-Hispanic white women, respectively). HR+/HER2- breast cancer incidence rates were strongly, positively correlated with mammography use, particularly for non-Hispanic white women (Pearson 0.57, two-sided P < .001). Triple-negative breast cancers, the subtype with the worst prognosis, were highest among non-Hispanic black women (27.2 per 100000 non-Hispanic black women), which is reflected in high rates in southeastern states.

CONCLUSIONS

Progress continues in reducing the burden of cancer in the United States. There are unique racial/ethnic-specific incidence patterns for breast cancer subtypes; likely because of both biologic and social risk factors, including variation in mammography use. Breast cancer subtype analysis confirms the capacity of cancer registries to adjust national collection standards to produce clinically relevant data based on evolving medical knowledge.

An open letter to panels that are deciding guidelines for breast cancer screening

Panels are presently reviewing breast cancer screening guidelines. It is critical that they understand which publications are scientifically valid, and which analyses are methodologically flawed and not valid. The scientific evidence clearly supports annual mammography screening beginning at the age of 40. The analyses that suggest that screening leads to overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancers are flawed and incorrect. There is little if any overdiagnosis of these cancers. The vast majority of breast cancers occur in women who are not at elevated risk so that excluding them from screening and only screening high risk women will deny the benefits of early detection to most women who develop breast cancer. Guidelines panels should not make decisions that exclude women from screening. Women should be provided with accurate information so that they can make informed decisions and have unimpeded access to screening if that is their preference.