Mammographic features associated with interval breast cancers in screening programs

A comparative analysis of risk factor associations with interval and screen-detected breast cancers: A large UK prospective study

The associations of certain factors, such as age and menopausal hormone therapy, with breast cancer risk are known to differ for interval and screen-detected cancers. However, the extent to which associations of other established breast cancer risk factors differ by mode of detection is unclear. We investigated associations of a wide range of risk factors using data from a large UK cohort with linkage to the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, cancer registration, and other health records. We used Cox regression to estimate adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between risk factors and breast cancer risk. A total of 9421 screen-detected and 5166 interval cancers were diagnosed in 517,555 women who were followed for an average of 9.72 years. We observed the following differences in risk factor associations by mode of detection: greater body mass index (BMI) was associated with a smaller increased risk of interval (RR per 5 unit increase 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11) than screen-detected cancer (RR 1.27, 1.23-1.30); having a first-degree family history was associated with a greater increased risk of interval (RR 1.81, 1.68-1.95) than screen-detected cancer (RR 1.52, 1.43-1.61); and having had previous breast surgery was associated with a greater increased risk of interval (RR 1.85, 1.72-1.99) than screen-detected cancer (RR 1.34, 1.26-1.42). As these differences in associations were relatively unchanged after adjustment for tumour grade, and are in line with the effects of these factors on mammographic density, they are likely to reflect the effects of these risk factors on screening sensitivity.

Genetic landscape of interval and screen detected breast cancer

Interval breast cancers (IBCs) are cancers diagnosed between screening episodes. Understanding the biological differences between IBCs and screen-detected breast-cancers (SDBCs) has the potential to improve mammographic screening and patient management. We analysed and compared the genomic landscape of 288 IBCs and 473 SDBCs by whole genome sequencing of paired tumour-normal patient samples collected as part of the UK 100,000 Genomes Project. Compared to SDBCs, IBCs were more likely to be lobular, higher grade, and triple negative. A more aggressive clinical phenotype was reflected in IBCs displaying features of genomic instability including a higher mutation rate and number of chromosomal structural abnormalities, defective homologous recombination and TP53 mutations. We did not however, find evidence to indicate that IBCs are associated with a significantly different immune response. While IBCs do not represent a unique molecular class of invasive breast cancer they exhibit a more aggressive phenotype, which is likely to be a consequence of the timing of tumour initiation. This information is relevant both with respect to treatment as well as informing the screening interval for mammography.

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

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

Risk Factors and Mortality Among Women With Interval Breast Cancer vs Screen-Detected Breast Cancer

Importance

The risk factors for interval breast cancer (IBC) compared with those for screen-detected breast cancer (SBC) and their association with mortality outcomes have not yet been evaluated among Korean women.

Objective

To evaluate risk factors associated with IBC and survival among Korean women with IBC compared with those with SBC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service Database. Women who participated in a national mammographic breast cancer screening program between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012, were included. Mortality outcomes were calculated from the date of breast cancer diagnosis to the date of death or December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed from March 1 to June 30, 2023.

Exposure

Breast cancer diagnosed within 6 to 24 months after a negative screening result (ie, IBC) or within 6 months after a positive screening result (ie, SBC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Risk factors and survival rates for IBC and SBC.

Results

This study included 8702 women with IBC (mean [SD] age, 53.3 [8.6] years) and 9492 women with SBC (mean [SD] age, 54.1 [9.0] years). Compared with SBC, the probability of IBC decreased as mammographic density increased. Lower body mass index, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use, and lack of family history of breast cancer were associated with a higher likelihood of IBC. When stratified by detection time, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and family history of breast cancer were associated with an increased likelihood of IBC diagnosed at 6 to 12 months but a decreased likelihood of IBC diagnosed at 12 to 24 months. Overall mortality of IBC was comparable with SBC, but total mortality and cancer-related mortality of IBC diagnosed between 6 and 12 months was higher than that of SBC.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that breast density, obesity, and HRT use were associated with IBC compared with SBC. These findings also suggest that higher supplemental breast ultrasound use among Korean women, especially those with dense breasts, could be attributed to a lower incidence of IBC among women with dense breasts compared with women with SBC, due to greater detection. Finally, overall mortality of IBC was comparable with that of SBC.

AI performance by mammographic density in a retrospective cohort study of 99,489 participants in BreastScreen Norway

OBJECTIVE

To explore the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to classify breast cancer by mammographic density in an organized screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We included information about 99,489 examinations from 74,941 women who participated in BreastScreen Norway, 2013-2019. All examinations were analyzed with an AI system that assigned a malignancy risk score (AI score) from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) for each examination. Mammographic density was classified into Volpara density grade (VDG), VDG1-4; VDG1 indicated fatty and VDG4 extremely dense breasts. Screen-detected and interval cancers with an AI score of 1-10 were stratified by VDG.

RESULTS

We found 10,406 (10.5% of the total) examinations to have an AI risk score of 10, of which 6.7% (704/10,406) was breast cancer. The cancers represented 89.7% (617/688) of the screen-detected and 44.6% (87/195) of the interval cancers. 20.3% (20,178/99,489) of the examinations were classified as VDG1 and 6.1% (6047/99,489) as VDG4. For screen-detected cancers, 84.0% (68/81, 95% CI, 74.1-91.2) had an AI score of 10 for VDG1, 88.9% (328/369, 95% CI, 85.2-91.9) for VDG2, 92.5% (185/200, 95% CI, 87.9-95.7) for VDG3, and 94.7% (36/38, 95% CI, 82.3-99.4) for VDG4. For interval cancers, the percentages with an AI score of 10 were 33.3% (3/9, 95% CI, 7.5-70.1) for VDG1 and 48.0% (12/25, 95% CI, 27.8-68.7) for VDG4.

CONCLUSION

The tested AI system performed well according to cancer detection across all density categories, especially for extremely dense breasts. The highest proportion of screen-detected cancers with an AI score of 10 was observed for women classified as VDG4.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Our study demonstrates that AI can correctly classify the majority of screen-detected and about half of the interval breast cancers, regardless of breast density.

KEY POINTS

• Mammographic density is important to consider in the evaluation of artificial intelligence in mammographic screening. • Given a threshold representing about 10% of those with the highest malignancy risk score by an AI system, we found an increasing percentage of cancers with increasing mammographic density. • Artificial intelligence risk score and mammographic density combined may help triage examinations to reduce workload for radiologists.

Investigation of Genetic Alterations Associated With Interval Breast Cancer

Importance

Breast cancers (BCs) diagnosed between 2 screening examinations are called interval cancers (ICs), and they have worse clinicopathological characteristics and poorer prognosis than screen-detected cancers (SDCs). However, the association of rare germline genetic variants with IC have not been studied.

Objective

To evaluate whether rare germline deleterious protein-truncating variants (PTVs) can be applied to discriminate between IC and SDC while considering mammographic density.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based genetic association study was based on women aged 40 to 76 years who were attending mammographic screening in Sweden. All women with a diagnosis of BC between January 2001 and January 2016 were included, together with age-matched controls. Patients with BC were followed up for survival until 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2021 to December 2022.

Exposure

Germline PTVs in 34 BC susceptibility genes as analyzed by targeted sequencing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Odds ratios (ORs) were used to compare IC with SDC using logistic regression. Hazard ratios were used to investigate BC-specific survival using Cox regression.

Results

All 4121 patients with BC (IC, n = 1229; SDC, n = 2892) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 55.5 (7.1) years. There were 5631 age-matched controls. The PTVs of the ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 genes were more common in patients with IC compared with SDC (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06-2.05). This association was primarily influenced by BRCA1/2 and PALB2 variants. A family history of BC together with PTVs of any of these genes synergistically increased the probability of receiving a diagnosis of IC rather than SDC (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.97-7.92). Furthermore, 10-year BC-specific survival revealed that if a patient received a diagnosis of an IC, carriers of PTVs in any of these 5 genes had significantly worse survival compared with patients not carrying any of them (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.06-3.92). All of these associations were further pronounced in a subset of patients with IC who had a low mammographic density at prior screening examination.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this study may be helpful in future optimizations of screening programs that aim to lower mortality as well as the clinical treatment of patients with BC.

Challenges and Changes of the Breast Cancer Screening Paradigm

Since four decades mammography is used for early breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women and still remains the gold standard imaging modality. However, population screening programs can be personalized and women can be divided into different groups based on risk factors and personal preferences. The availability of new and evolving imaging modalities, for example, digital breast tomosynthesis, dynamic-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), abbreviated MRI protocols, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography leads to new challenges and perspectives regarding the feasibility and potential harms of breast cancer screening. The aim of this review is to discuss the current guidelines for different risk groups, to analyze the recent published studies about the diagnostic performance of the imaging modalities and to discuss new developments and future perspectives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.

Interplay of the transcription factor MRTF-A and matrix stiffness controls mammary acinar structure and protrusion formation

Background

Ongoing differentiation processes characterize the mammary gland during sexual development and reproduction. In contrast, defective remodelling is assumed to be causal for breast tumorigenesis. We have shown recently that the myocardin-related transcription factor A (MRTF-A) is essential for forming regular hollow acinar structures. Moreover, MRTF-A activity is known to depend on the biochemical and physical properties of the surrounding extracellular matrix. In this study we analysed the mutual interaction of different matrix stiffnesses and MRTF-A activities on formation and maintenance of mammary acini.

Methods

Human MCF10A acini and primary mature organoids isolated from murine mammary glands were cultivated in 3D on soft and stiff matrices (200–4000 Pa) in conjunction with the Rho/MRTF/SRF pathway inhibitor CCG-203971 and genetic activation of MRTF-A.

Results

Three-dimensional growth on stiff collagen matrices (> 3000 Pa) was accompanied by increased MRTF-A activity and formation of invasive protrusions in acini cultures of human mammary MCF10A cells. Differential coating and synthetic hydrogels indicated that protrusion formation was attributable to stiffness but not the biochemical constitution of the matrix. Stiffness-induced protrusion formation was also observed in preformed acini isolated from murine mammary glands. Acinar outgrowth in both the MCF10A acini and the primary organoids was partially reverted by treatment with the Rho/MRTF/SRF pathway inhibitor CCG-203971. However, genetic activation of MRTF-A in the mature primary acini also reduced protrusion formation on stiff matrices, whilst it strongly promoted luminal filling matrix-independently.

Conclusion

Our results suggest an intricate crosstalk between matrix stiffness and MRTF-A, whose activity is required for protrusion formation and sufficient for luminal filling of mammary acini.

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

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evaluation of Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for High-Risk Women in Beijing, China: A Real-World Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Mammography-based breast cancer screening has been widely implemented in many developed countries. Evidence was needed on participation and diagnostic performance of population-based breast cancer screening using ultrasound in China.

METHODS

We used data from the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China in Beijing from 2014 to 2019 and was followed up until July 2020 by matching with the Beijing Cancer Registry database. Eligible women between the ages of 45 and 69 years were recruited from six districts and assessed their risk of breast cancer through an established risk scoring system. Women evaluated to be at high risk of breast cancer were invited to undergo both ultrasound and mammography. Participation rates were calculated, and their associated factors were explored. In addition, the performance of five different breast cancer screening modalities was evaluated in this study.

RESULTS

A total of 49,161 eligible women were recruited in this study. Among them, 15,550 women were assessed as high risk for breast cancer, and 7,500 women underwent ultrasound and/or mammography as recommended, with a participation rate of 48.2%. The sensitivity of mammography alone, ultrasound alone, combined of ultrasound and mammography, ultrasound for primary screening followed by mammography for triage, and mammography for preliminary screening followed by ultrasound for triage were19.2%, 38.5%, 50.0%, 46.2%, and 19.2%, and the specificity were 96.1%, 98.6%, 94.7%, 97.6%, 95.7%, respectively. The sensitivity of combined ultrasound and mammography, ultrasound for primary screening followed by mammography for triage, was significantly higher than mammography alone (p=0.008 and p=0.039). Additionally, ultrasound alone (48,323 RMB ($7,550)) and ultrasound for primary screening followed by mammography for triage (55,927 RMB ($8,739)) were the most cost-effective methods for breast cancer screening than other modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound alone and ultrasound for primary screening and mammography are superior to mammography for breast cancer screening in high-risk Chinese women.

Opportunities in cancer imaging: risk-adapted breast imaging in screening

In the UK, women between 50-70 years are invited for 3-yearly mammography screening irrespective of their likelihood of developing breast cancer. The only risk adaption is for women with >30% lifetime risk who are offered annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography, and annual mammography for some moderate-risk women. Using questionnaires, breast density, and polygenic risk scores, it is possible to stratify the population into the lowest 20% risk, who will develop <4% of cancers and the top 4%, who will develop 18% of cancers. Mammography is a good screening test but has low sensitivity of 60% in the 9% of women with the highest category of breast density (BIRADS D) who have a 2.5- to fourfold breast cancer risk. There is evidence that adding ultrasound to the screening mammogram can increase the cancer detection rate and reduce advanced stage interval and next round cancers. Similarly, alternative tests such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) or abbreviated MRI (ABB-MRI) are much more effective in detecting cancer in women with dense breasts. Scintimammography has been shown to be a viable alternative for dense breasts or for follow-up in those with a personal history of breast cancer and scarring as result of treatment. For supplemental screening to be worthwhile in these women, new technologies need to reduce the number of stage II cancers and be cost effective when tested in large scale trials. This article reviews the evidence for supplemental imaging and examines whether a risk-stratified approach is feasible.

MRI versus Mammography plus Ultrasound in Women at Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk: Study Design and Protocol of the MRIB Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

In women at high/intermediate lifetime risk of breast cancer (BC-LTR), contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography ± ultrasound (MX ± US) increases sensitivity but decreases specificity. Screening with MRI alone is an alternative and potentially more cost-effective strategy. Here, we describe the study protocol and the characteristics of enrolled patients for MRIB feasibility, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, which aims to compare MRI alone versus MX+US in women at intermediate breast cancer risk (aged 40-59, with a 15-30% BC-LTR and/or extremely dense breasts). Two screening rounds per woman were planned in ten centers experienced in MRI screening, the primary endpoint being the rate of cancers detected in the 2 arms after 5 years of follow-up. From July 2013 to November 2015, 1254 women (mean age 47 years) were enrolled: 624 were assigned to MX+US and 630 to MRI. Most of them were aged below 50 (72%) and premenopausal (45%), and 52% used oral contraceptives. Among postmenopausal women, 15% had used hormone replacement therapy. Breast and/or ovarian cancer in mothers and/or sisters were reported by 37% of enrolled women, 79% had extremely dense breasts, and 41% had a 15-30% BC-LTR. The distribution of the major determinants of breast cancer risk profiles (breast density and family history of breast and ovarian cancer) of enrolled women varied across centers.

Relationship of established risk factors with breast cancer subtypes

Background

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, divided into subtypes based on the expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Subtypes have different biology and prognosis, with accumulating evidence of different risk factors. The purpose of this study was to compare breast cancer risk factors across tumor subtypes in a large, diverse mammography population.

Methods

Women aged 40–84 without a history of breast cancer with a screening mammogram at three United States health systems from 2006 to 2015 were included. Risk factor questionnaires were completed at mammogram visit, supplemented by electronic health records. Invasive tumor subtype was defined by immunohistochemistry as ER/PR+HER2−, ER/PR+HER2+, ER, and PR−HER2+, or triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cox proportional hazards models were run for each subtype. Associations of race, reproductive history, prior breast problems, family history, breast density, and body mass index (BMI) were assessed. The association of tumor subtypes with screen detection and interval cancer was assessed using logistic regression among invasive cases.

Results

The study population included 198,278 women with a median of 6.5 years of follow‐up (IQR 4.2–9.0 years). There were 4002 invasive cancers, including 3077 (77%) ER/PR+HER2−, 300 (8%) TNBC, 342 (9%) ER/PR+HER2+, and 126 (3%) ER/PR−HER2+ subtype. In multivariate models, Black women had 2.7 times higher risk of TNBC than white women (HR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.99–3.58). Breast density was associated with increased risk of all subtypes. BMI was more strongly associated with ER/PR+HER2− and HER2+ subtypes among postmenopausal women than premenopausal women. Breast density was more strongly associated with ER/PR+HER2− and TNBC among premenopausal than postmenopausal women. TNBC was more likely to be interval cancer than other subtypes.

Conclusions

These results have implications for risk assessment and understanding of the etiology of breast cancer subtypes. More research is needed to determine what factors explain the higher risk of TNBC for Black women.

Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

This study investigates whether quantitative breast density (BD) serves as an imaging biomarker for more intensive breast cancer screening by predicting interval, and node-positive cancers.

METHODS

This case-control study of 1204 women aged 47-73 includes 599 cancer cases (302 screen-detected, 297 interval; 239 node-positive, 360 node-negative) and 605 controls. Automated BD software calculated fibroglandular volume (FGV), volumetric breast density (VBD) and density grade (DG). A radiologist assessed BD using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100. Logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) determined whether BD could predict mode of detection (screen-detected or interval); node-negative cancers; node-positive cancers, and all cancers vs. controls.

RESULTS

FGV, VBD, VAS, and DG all discriminated interval cancers (all p < 0.01) from controls. Only FGV-quartile discriminated screen-detected cancers (p < 0.01). Based on AUC, FGV discriminated all cancer types better than VBD or VAS. FGV showed a significantly greater discrimination of interval cancers, AUC = 0.65, than of screen-detected cancers, AUC = 0.61 (p < 0.01) as did VBD (0.63 and 0.53, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

FGV, VBD, VAS and DG discriminate interval cancers from controls, reflecting some masking risk. Only FGV discriminates screen-detected cancers perhaps adding a unique component of breast cancer risk.

[Fusion of mammography and ultrasonography]

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

Currently, the combination of mammography and sonography is the gold standard in breast diagnostics. If there are any uncertainties, further examinations such as breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and, in studies, computer tomographic procedures can be used. These investigations are carried out separately.

METHODICAL INNOVATION

The combination of different imaging techniques in fusion devices promises a significant improvement in breast diagnostics. Advantages of the new imaging technique include the simultaneous acquisition of different image modalities with a fixed breast, which allows better spatial localization of the region of interest (ROI). This can also reduce the time and investigator effort and compensate for the weaknesses of one imaging technique with the strengths of a second imaging technique. The current state of research and the history of the fusion of ultrasound and mammography in breast diagnostics are summarized.

Breast cancer risk factors by mode of detection among screened women in the Cancer Prevention Study-II

BACKGROUND

Identifying risk factors for women at high risk of symptom-detected breast cancers that were missed by screening would enable targeting of enhanced screening regimens. To this end, we examined associations of breast cancer risk factors by mode of detection in screened women from the Cancer Prevention Study (CPS)-II Nutrition Cohort.

METHODS

Among 77,206 women followed for a median of 14.8 years, 2711 screen-detected and 1281 symptom-detected breast cancer cases were diagnosed. Multivariable-adjusted associations were estimated using joint Cox proportional hazards regression models with person-time calculated contingent on screening.

RESULTS

Factors associated with higher risks of symptom-detected and screen-detected breast cancer included current combined hormone therapy (HT) use (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.72-2.48 and 1.45, 1.27-1.65, respectively) and history of benign breast disease (1.85, 1.64-2.08 and 1.43, 1.31-1.55, respectively). Current estrogen-only HT use was associated with symptom-detected (1.40, 1.15-1.71) but not screen-detected (0.95, 0.83-1.09) breast cancer. Higher risk of screen-detected but not symptom-detected breast cancer was observed for obese vs. normal body mass index (1.22, 1.01-1.48 and 0.76, 0.56-1.01, respectively), per 3 h/day sitting time (1.10, 1.04-1.16 and 0.97, 0.89-1.06, respectively), and ≥ 2 drinks per day vs. nondrinker (1.40, 1.16-1.69 and 1.27, 0.97-1.66, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in risk factors for symptom-detected vs. screen-detected breast cancer were observed and most notably, use of combined and estrogen-only HT and a history of benign breast disease were associated with increased risk of symptomatic detected breast cancer.

IMPACT

If confirmed, these data suggest that such women may benefit from more intensive screening to facilitate early detection.

Comparison of Mortality Among Participants of Women's Health Initiative Trials With Screening-Detected Breast Cancers vs Interval Breast Cancers

IMPORTANCE

Interval breast cancers (IBCs) are cancers that emerge after a mammogram with negative results but before the patient's next scheduled screening. Interval breast cancer has a worse prognosis than cancers detected by screening; however, it is unknown whether the length of the interscreening period is associated with prognostic features and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the prognostic features and mortality rate of women with IBCs diagnosed within 1 year or between 1 and 2.5 years of a mammogram with negative results with the prognostic features and mortality rate of women with breast cancers detected by screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used mammography data, tumor characteristics, and patient demographic data from the Women's Health Initiative study, which recruited participants from 1993 to 1998 and followed up with participants for a median of 19 years. The present study sample for these analyses included women aged 50 to 79 years who participated in the Women's Health Initiative study and includes data collected through March 31, 2018. There were 5455 incidents of breast cancer; only 3019 women compliant with screening were retained in analyses. Statistical analysis was performed from October 25, 2018, to November 24, 2019. Breast cancers detected by screening and IBCs were defined based on mammogram history, date of last mammogram, type of visit, and results of examination. Interval breast cancers were subdivided into those occurring within 1 year or between 1 and 2.5 years after the last protocol-mandated mammogram with negative results.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of this study was breast cancer-specific mortality for each case of breast cancer detected by screening and IBCs detected within 1 year or between 1 and 2.5 years from a mammogram with negative results. Secondary outcomes included prognostic and tumor characteristics for each group. Comparisons between groups were made using the t test, the χ2 test, and Fine-Gray multivariable cumulative incidence regression analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 3019 participants in this analysis, all were women with a mean (SD) age of 63.1 (6.8) years at enrollment and 68.5 (7.1) years at diagnosis. A total of 1050 cases of IBC were identified, with 324 (30.9%) diagnosed within 1 year from a mammogram with negative results and 726 (69.1%) diagnosed between 1 and 2.5 years after last mammogram with negative results. The remaining 1969 cases were breast cancers detected by screening. Interval breast cancers diagnosed within 1 year from a mammogram with negative results had significantly more lobular histologic characteristics (13.0% vs. 8.1%), a larger tumor size (1.97 cm vs 1.43 cm), a higher clinical stage (28.4% vs 17.3% regional and 3.7% vs 0.6% distant), and more lymph node involvement (27.1% vs 17.0%) than cancers detected by screening. Unadjusted breast cancer-specific mortality hazard ratios were significantly higher for IBCs diagnosed within 1 year from a mammogram with negative results compared with breast cancers detected by screening (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.39-2.65). Higher breast cancer-specific mortality remained statistically significant for IBCs diagnosed within 1 year after adjusting for trial group, molecular subtype, waist to hip ratio, histologic characteristics, and either tumor size (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.03-2.08) or lymph node involvement (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.03-2.01). However, significance was lost when tumor size and lymph node involvement were both included in the model (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.96-1.88). Interval breast cancers diagnosed between 1 and 2.5 years from a mammogram with negative results were not different from breast cancers detected by screening based on prognostic factors or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Women with IBCs diagnosed within 1 year of negative mammogram results overall were associated with worse survival than women with breast cancers detected by screening. These differences in survival may be due to a uniquely aggressive biology among IBC cases.

Interval breast cancer is associated with other types of tumors

Breast cancer (BC) patients diagnosed between two screenings (interval cancers) are more likely than screen-detected patients to carry rare deleterious mutations in cancer genes potentially leading to increased risk for other non-breast cancer (non-BC) tumors. In this study, we include 14,846 women diagnosed with BC of which 1,772 are interval and 13,074 screen-detected. Compared to women with screen-detected cancers, interval breast cancer patients are more likely to have a non-BC tumor before (Odds ratio (OR): 1.43 [1.19–1.70], P = 9.4 x 10⁻⁵) and after (OR: 1.28 [1.14–1.44], P = 4.70 x 10⁻⁵) breast cancer diagnosis, are more likely to report a family history of non-BC tumors and have a lower genetic risk score based on common variants for non-BC tumors. In conclusion, interval breast cancer is associated with other tumors and common cancer variants are unlikely to be responsible for this association. These findings could have implications for future screening and prevention programs.

Interval cancer patients are more likely to carry rare gene mutations than screen-detected breast cancer patients. Here, the authors report that interval cancer patients are more likely cancer survivors and are at a greater risk of developing other non-breast tumors.

Does Breast Density Increase the Risk of Re-excision for Women with Breast Cancer Having Breast-Conservation Therapy?

BACKGROUND

Women with dense breasts may have less-accurate preoperative evaluation of extent of disease, potentially affecting the achievement of negative margins. The goal of this study is to examine the association between breast density and re-excision rates in women having breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with stage I/II invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery between 1/1/2014 and 10/31/2014 were included. Breast density was assessed by two radiologists. The association between breast density and re-excision was examined using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and one women were included. Overall, 106 (15.1%) women had at least one re-excision. Younger age at diagnosis was associated with increased breast density (p < 0.001). On univariable analysis, increased breast density was associated with significantly increased odds of re-excision (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.83), as was multifocal disease, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive status, and extensive intraductal component (EIC) (all p < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, breast density remained significantly associated with increased odds of re-excision (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00-1.86), as did multifocality and EIC. HER2 positive status was not significantly associated with re-excision on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with dense breasts are more likely to need additional surgery (re-excision after breast-conserving surgery), but increased breast density did not adversely affect disease-free survival in our study. Our findings support the need for further study in developing techniques that can help decrease re-excisions for women with dense breasts who undergo breast-conserving surgery.

Brightness Mode and Color Doppler Ultrasound in Differential Diagnosis of Breast Lesions in Saudi Females

Objective:

The aim of the study was to identify the pathological characteristics of benign and malignant breast lesions among Saudi females using brightness mode (B-mode) and color Doppler ultrasound (US).

Materials and Methods:

This study was retrospectively carried out in a single center in the Radiology and Medical Imaging Department, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A convenient method of sampling was used to include all patients referred for different diagnosis during the period of January 2016 and December 2018. A sample size of 100 cases was selected with 50% of the cases being benign breast lesions, while the rest were malignant. The data collection instruments comprised data collection sheets, while a Philips US system with a 9 MHz linear probe was used to give the differential results. The results were considered significant when P < 0.05. The statistical diagnostic test was used to detect sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of US in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions in Saudi females.

Results:

B-mode and color Doppler US findings of breast mass measurements, shape, echotexture, and the presence and absence of vascularity present a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 97.09%, 80.65%, and 93.28% in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses.

Conclusion:

In Saudi females with dense breasts, the risk of breast cancer development is increased. Moreover, B-mode in combination with color Doppler US was highly determined the results of differential diagnosis for any breast lesions.

Sterol regulatory element binding protein 1 couples mechanical cues and lipid metabolism

Sterol regulatory element binding proteins (SREBPs) are a family of transcription factors that regulate lipid biosynthesis and adipogenesis by controlling the expression of several enzymes required for cholesterol, fatty acid, triacylglycerol and phospholipid synthesis. In vertebrates, SREBP activation is mainly controlled by a complex and well-characterized feedback mechanism mediated by cholesterol, a crucial bio-product of the SREBP-activated mevalonate pathway. In this work, we identified acto-myosin contractility and mechanical forces imposed by the extracellular matrix (ECM) as SREBP1 regulators. SREBP1 control by mechanical cues depends on geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate, another key bio-product of the mevalonate pathway, and impacts on stem cell fate in mouse and on fat storage in Drosophila. Mechanistically, we show that activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) by ECM stiffening and geranylgeranylated RhoA-dependent acto-myosin contraction inhibits SREBP1 activation. Our results unveil an unpredicted and evolutionary conserved role of SREBP1 in rewiring cell metabolism in response to mechanical cues.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

In 30 states, women who have had screening mammography are informed of their breast density on the basis of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categories estimated subjectively by radiologists. Variation in these clinical categories across and within radiologists has led to discussion about whether automated BI-RADS density should be reported instead.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether breast cancer risk and detection are similar for automated and clinical BI-RADS density measures.

DESIGN

Case-control.

SETTING

San Francisco Mammography Registry and Mayo Clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

1609 women with screen-detected cancer, 351 women with interval invasive cancer, and 4409 matched control participants.

MEASUREMENTS

Automated and clinical BI-RADS density assessed on digital mammography at 2 time points from September 2006 to October 2014, interval and screen-detected breast cancer risk, and mammography sensitivity.

RESULTS

Of women whose breast density was categorized by automated BI-RADS more than 6 months to 5 years before diagnosis, those with extremely dense breasts had a 5.65-fold higher interval cancer risk (95% CI, 3.33 to 9.60) and a 1.43-fold higher screen-detected risk (CI, 1.14 to 1.79) than those with scattered fibroglandular densities. Associations of interval and screen-detected cancer with clinical BI-RADS density were similar to those with automated BI-RADS density, regardless of whether density was measured more than 6 months to less than 2 years or 2 to 5 years before diagnosis. Automated and clinical BI-RADS density measures had similar discriminatory accuracy, which was higher for interval than screen-detected cancer (c-statistics: 0.70 vs. 0.62 [P < 0.001] and 0.72 vs. 0.62 [P < 0.001], respectively). Mammography sensitivity was similar for automated and clinical BI-RADS categories: fatty, 93% versus 92%; scattered fibroglandular densities, 90% versus 90%; heterogeneously dense, 82% versus 78%; and extremely dense, 63% versus 64%, respectively.

LIMITATION

Neither automated nor clinical BI-RADS density was assessed on tomosynthesis, an emerging breast screening method.

CONCLUSION

Automated and clinical BI-RADS density similarly predict interval and screen-detected cancer risk, suggesting that either measure may be used to inform women of their breast density.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study

Background

Texture patterns have been shown to improve breast cancer risk segregation in addition to area-based mammographic density. The additional value of texture pattern scores on top of volumetric mammographic density measures in a large screening cohort has never been studied.

Methods

Volumetric mammographic density and texture pattern scores were assessed automatically for the first available digital mammography (DM) screening examination of 51,400 women (50–75 years of age) participating in the Dutch biennial breast cancer screening program between 2003 and 2011. The texture assessment method was developed in a previous study and validated in the current study. Breast cancer information was obtained from the screening registration system and through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. All screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed at the first available digital screening examination were excluded. During a median follow-up period of 4.2 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0–6.2) years, 301 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. The associations between texture pattern scores, volumetric breast density measures and breast cancer risk were determined using Cox proportional hazard analyses. Discriminatory performance was assessed using c-indices.

Results

The median age of the women at the time of the first available digital mammography examination was 56 years (IQR 51–63). Texture pattern scores were positively associated with breast cancer risk (hazard ratio (HR) 3.16 (95% CI 2.16–4.62) (p value for trend <0.001), for quartile (Q) 4 compared to Q1). The c-index of texture was 0.61 (95% CI 0.57–0.64). Dense volume and percentage dense volume showed positive associations with breast cancer risk (HR 1.85 (95% CI 1.32–2.59) (p value for trend <0.001) and HR 2.17 (95% CI 1.51–3.12) (p value for trend <0.001), respectively, for Q4 compared to Q1). When adding texture measures to models with dense volume or percentage dense volume, c-indices increased from 0.56 (95% CI 0.53–0.59) to 0.62 (95% CI 0.58–0.65) (p < 0.001) and from 0.58 (95% CI 0.54–0.61) to 0.60 (95% CI 0.57–0.63) (p = 0.054), respectively.

Conclusions

Deep-learning-based texture pattern scores, measured automatically on digital mammograms, are associated with breast cancer risk, independently of volumetric mammographic density, and augment the capacity to discriminate between future breast cancer and non-breast cancer cases.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13058-018-0961-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

In the light of the breast density legislation in the USA, it is important to know a woman's breast cancer risk, but particularly her risk of a tumor that is not detected through mammographic screening (interval cancer). Therefore, we examined the associations of automatically measured volumetric breast density with screen-detected and interval cancer risk, separately.

METHODS

Volumetric breast measures were assessed automatically using Volpara version 1.5.0 (Matakina, New Zealand) for the first available digital mammography (DM) examination of 52,814 women (age 50 - 75 years) participating in the Dutch biennial breast cancer screening program between 2003 and 2011. Breast cancer information was obtained from the screening registration system and through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We excluded all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed as a result of the first digital screening examination. During a median follow-up period of 4.2 (IQR 2.0-6.2) years, 523 women were diagnosed with breast cancer of which 299 were screen-detected and 224 were interval breast cancers. The associations between volumetric breast measures and breast cancer risk were determined using Cox proportional hazards analyses.

RESULTS

Percentage dense volume was found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (hazard ratio (HR) 8.37 (95% CI 4.34-16.17) and HR 1.39 (95% CI 0.82-2.36), respectively, for Volpara density grade category (VDG) 4 compared to VDG1 (p for heterogeneity < 0.001)). Dense volume (DV) was also found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (HR 4.92 (95% CI 2.98-8.12) and HR 2.30 (95% CI 1.39-3.80), respectively, for VDG-like category (C)4 compared to C1 (p for heterogeneity = 0.041)). The association between percentage dense volume categories and interval breast cancer risk (HR 8.37) was not significantly stronger than the association between absolute dense volume categories and interval breast cancer risk (HR 4.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that both absolute dense volume and percentage dense volume are strong markers of breast cancer risk, but that they are even stronger markers for predicting the occurrence of tumors that are not detected during mammography breast cancer screening.

A Standard Mammography Unit - Standard 3D Ultrasound Probe Fusion Prototype: First Results

AIM

The combination of different imaging modalities through the use of fusion devices promises significant diagnostic improvement for breast pathology. The aim of this study was to evaluate image quality and clinical feasibility of a prototype fusion device (fusion prototype) constructed from a standard tomosynthesis mammography unit and a standard 3D ultrasound probe using a new method of breast compression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Imaging was performed on 5 mastectomy specimens from patients with confirmed DCIS or invasive carcinoma (BI-RADS ^™ 6). For the preclinical fusion prototype an ABVS system ultrasound probe from an Acuson S2000 was integrated into a MAMMOMAT Inspiration (both Siemens Healthcare Ltd) and, with the aid of a newly developed compression plate, digital mammogram and automated 3D ultrasound images were obtained.

RESULTS

The quality of digital mammogram images produced by the fusion prototype was comparable to those produced using conventional compression. The newly developed compression plate did not influence the applied x-ray dose. The method was not more labour intensive or time-consuming than conventional mammography. From the technical perspective, fusion of the two modalities was achievable.

CONCLUSION

In this study, using only a few mastectomy specimens, the fusion of an automated 3D ultrasound machine with a standard mammography unit delivered images of comparable quality to conventional mammography. The device allows simultaneous ultrasound - the second important imaging modality in complementary breast diagnostics - without increasing examination time or requiring additional staff.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

The introduction of breast screening programs has raised the problem of interval breast cancers (IBC). The aims of this study were to analyze the impact of IBC on the screening program, to compare IBC and screen-detected cancers (SDC), and to identify possible predictors of mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with breast cancer diagnosed during the regional breast screening program between January 2008 and December 2013 at a single center in Italy were included. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred thirty-four patients were enrolled; 106 women (19.9%) had IBC and 428 women (80.1%) SDC. IBC presented more aggressive features compared to SDC, such as tumor invasiveness (95% vs. 85%; P = .005), tumor size (≥ pT2 37% vs. 21%; P = .001), grade (G3 39% vs. 17%; P < .001), and St Gallen molecular subtype (triple negative 22% vs. 7%; P < .001), resulting in higher distant recurrence rate (8% vs. 2%; P = .009) and worse overall and disease-free survival (P = .03 and P = .001, respectively). Cox multivariate regression analysis identified St Gallen molecular subtype as the only predictor of mortality in patients with breast cancer (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

IBC accounted for one-fifth of all breast cancers diagnosed in women who followed the regional screening program. Furthermore, IBC appeared to have more aggressive features compared to SDC, leading to worse survival. These worse survivals depended on St Gallen molecular subtype.

Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by mode of detection and tumor size: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Risk of screen-detected breast cancer mostly reflects inherent risk, while risk of interval cancer reflects inherent risk and risk of masking (risk of the tumor not being detected due to increased dense tissue). Therefore the predictors of whether a breast cancer is interval or screen-detected include those that predict masking. Our aim was to investigate the associations between mammographic measures and (1) inherent risk, and (2) masking.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study nested within the Melbourne collaborative cohort study of 244 screen-detected cases (192 small tumors (<2 cm)) matched to 700 controls and 148 interval cases (76 small tumors) matched to 446 controls. Dense area (DA), percent dense area (PDA), and non-dense area (NDA) were measured using the Cumulus software. Conditional and unconditional logistic regression were applied as appropriate to estimate the odds per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA) adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI), allowing for the association with BMI to be a function of age at diagnosis. Tests of fit were performed using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

For screen-detected cancer, the association with BMI had a marginally significant dependence on age at diagnosis, and after adjustment both DA and PDA were associated with risk (OPERA approximately 1.2) and gave a similar fit. NDA was not associated with risk. For interval cancer, the BMI risk association was not dependent on age at diagnosis and the best fitting model was PDA alone (OPERA = 2.24, 95 % confidence interval 1.75, 2.86). Prediction of interval versus screen-detected cancer was best achieved by PDA alone (OPERA = 1.76, 95 % confidence interval 1.39, 2.22) with no association with BMI. When the analysis was restricted to small tumors to reduce the influence of tumor growth, we obtained similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Inherent breast cancer risk is predicted by BMI and DA or PDA, but not NDA. Masking is predicted by PDA, and not by BMI. Understanding risk and masking could help tailor mammographic screening.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society

IMPORTANCE

Breast cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality among US women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced breast cancer morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2003 breast cancer screening guideline for women at average risk for breast cancer.

PROCESS

The ACS commissioned a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related to the screening interval. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Screening mammography in women aged 40 to 69 years is associated with a reduction in breast cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening for women 70 years and older who are in good health. Estimates of the cumulative lifetime risk of false-positive examination results are greater if screening begins at younger ages because of the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger women. The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime risk with confidence. Analysis examining the screening interval demonstrates more favorable tumor characteristics when premenopausal women are screened annually vs biennially. Evidence does not support routine clinical breast examination as a screening method for women at average risk.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation). Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation). Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation). Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation). Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer (qualified recommendation). The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These updated ACS guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. These recommendations should be considered by physicians and women in discussions about breast cancer screening.

Breast cancer tumour growth modelling for studying the association of body size with tumour growth rate and symptomatic detection using case-control data

Introduction

A large body size is associated with larger breast cancer tumours at diagnosis. Standard regression models for tumour size at diagnosis are not sufficient for unravelling the mechanisms behind the association.

Methods

Using Swedish case-control data, we identified 1352 postmenopausal women with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1993 and 1995. We used a novel continuous tumour growth model, which models tumour sizes at diagnosis through three submodels: for tumour growth, time to symptomatic detection, and screening sensitivity. Tumour size at other time points is thought of as a latent variable.

Results

We quantified the relationship between body size with tumour growth and time to symptomatic detection. High body mass index and large breast size are, respectively, significantly associated with fast tumour growth rate and delayed time to symptomatic detection (combined P value = 5.0 × 10⁻⁵ and individual P values = 0.089 and 0.022). We also quantified the role of mammographic density in screening sensitivity.

Conclusions

The times at which tumours will be symptomatically detected may vary substantially between women with different breast sizes. The proposed tumour growth model represents a novel and useful approach for quantifying the effects of breast cancer risk factors on tumour growth and detection.