Prolonged screening interval due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with tumor characteristics and treatment; a register-based study from BreastScreen Norway

OBJECTIVE

During the COVID-19 pandemic Norway had to suspend its national breast cancer screening program. We aimed to investigate the effect of the pandemic-induced suspension on the screening interval, and its subsequent association with the tumor characteristics and treatment of screen-detected (SDC) and interval breast cancer (IC).

METHODS

Information about women aged 50-69, participating in BreastScreen Norway, and diagnosed with a SDC (N = 3799) or IC (N = 1806) between 2018 and 2021 was extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between COVID-19 induced prolonged screening intervals and tumor characteristics and treatment.

RESULTS

Women with a SDC and their last screening exam before the pandemic had a median screening interval of 24.0 months (interquartile range: 23.8-24.5), compared to 27.0 months (interquartile range: 25.8-28.5) for those with their last screening during the pandemic. The tumor characteristics and treatment of women with a SDC, last screening during the pandemic, and a screening interval of 29-31 months, did not differ from those of women with a SDC, last screening before the pandemic, and a screening interval of 23-25 months. ICs detected 24-31 months after screening, were more likely to be histological grade 3 compared to ICs detected 0-23 months after screening (odds ratio: 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Pandemic-induced prolonged screening intervals were not associated with the tumor characteristics and treatment of SDCs, but did increase the risk of a histopathological grade 3 IC. This study provides insights into the possible effects of extending the screening interval.

Increased breast cancer mortality due to treatment delay and needle biopsy type: a retrospective analysis of SEER-medicare

BACKGROUND

Substantial evidence indicates that delay of first treatment after diagnosis is associated with poorer survival outcomes in breast cancer. Accordingly, the Commission on Cancer introduced a quality measure for receipt of therapeutic surgery within 60 days of diagnostic biopsy for stage I-III breast cancer patients in the non-neoadjuvant setting. It is unknown, however, what may contribute to mortality associated with treatment delay. Therefore, we investigated whether biopsy type moderates the effect of the mortality risk posed by treatment delay.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 31,306 women with stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2013 selected from the SEER-Medicare database was performed to determine whether needle biopsy type [core needle biopsy (CNB) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB)] impacts time to treatment (TTT)-associated survival outcomes. Multivariable Fine-Gray competing risk survival models, adjusted for inverse propensity score weights, were used to determine the association between biopsy type, TTT, and breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM).

RESULTS

TTT ≥ 60 days was associated with 45% higher risk of BCSM (sHR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.24-1.69) compared to those with TTT < 60 days in stage I-III cases. Independent of TTT, CNB was associated with 28% higher risk of BCSM compared to VAB in stage II-III cases (sHR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.36), translating to a 2.7% and 4.0% absolute difference in BCSM at 5 and 10 years, respectively. However, in stage I cases, the BCSM risk was not associated with type of biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that treatment delay ≥ 60 days is independently associated with poorer survival outcomes in breast cancer patients. In stage II-III, CNB is associated with higher BCSM than VAB. However, type of biopsy does not underlie TTT-associated breast cancer mortality risk.

Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC)

BACKGROUND

Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49 years: Impact of length of screening interval on effectiveness of the program

Objectives

To estimate the impact on the effectiveness of Swedish breast cancer screening program in women aged 40–49 years of shortening the screening interval from 21 months to 18 or 12 months.

Methods

The reduction in breast cancer mortality among participants in screening with mammography was previously estimated in the Swedish SCReening of Young women (SCRY) study to be 29%. The expected increased effectiveness with a hypothetical shorter screening interval than the average of 21 months in SCRY was calculated using data about the women who died from breast cancer even though they participated in the SCRY program.

Results

During the study period, 547 women who participated in the index screening round died from breast cancer. Shortening the screening interval to 18 months led to an improved effectiveness of 0.7–3.9% considering interval cancers only and of 1.3–7.6% considering screening-detected cancers only, and for both interval and screening-detected cancers the improvement was 1.9–11.5% when the assumed mortality reduction for the deceased cases varied from 5% to 30%. Shortening the screening interval to 12 months increased the effectiveness by 1.6–9.8% for interval cancers and by 2.9–17.4% for both interval and screening-detected cancers.

Conclusion

Shortening the screening interval for women aged 40–49 years to 18 or 12 months might further reduce the breast cancer mortality rate.

Breast Cancer Screening: Why Can't Everyone Agree?

Screening mammography and evolving treatments have improved mortality over the last 25 years. However, breast cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality for women in the United States. There are several contradictory recommendations regarding breast cancer screening. Familiarity with these recommendations will allow physicians to counsel their patients and ensure well-informed shared decision making.

Mammography Screening Among the Elderly: A Research Challenge

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials demonstrate clear benefits of mammography screening in women through age 74 years. We explored age- and race-specific rates of mammography screening and breast cancer mortality among women aged 69 to 84 years.

METHODS

We analyzed Medicare claims data for women residing within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results geographic areas from 1995 to 2009 from 64,384 non-Hispanic women (4886 black and 59,498 white) and ascertained all primary breast cancer cases diagnosed between ages 69 and 84 years. The exposure was annual or biennial screening mammography during the 4 years immediately preceding diagnosis. The outcome was breast cancer mortality during the 10 years immediately after diagnosis.

RESULTS

After adjustment for stage at diagnosis, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, comorbid conditions, and contextual socioeconomic status, hazard ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) for breast cancer mortality relative to no/irregular mammography at 10 years for women aged 69 to 84 years at diagnosis were 0.31 (0.29-0.33) for annual mammography and 0.47 (0.44-0.51) for biennial mammography among whites and 0.36 (0.29-0.44) for annual mammography and 0.47 (0.37-0.58) for biennial mammography among blacks. Trends were similar at 5 years overall and stratified by ages 69 to 74 years, 75 to 78 years, and 79 to 84 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In these Medicare claims and Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data, elderly non-Hispanic women who self-selected for annual mammography had lower 10-year breast cancer mortality than corresponding women who self-selected for biennial or no/irregular mammography. These findings were similar among black and white women. The data highlight the evidentiary limitations of data used for current screening mammography recommendations.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of shortening hospital follow-up after breast cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, the first 5 years of follow-up after treatment for breast cancer are carried out in hospital with yearly mammography. After this, for patients aged over 60 years who have undergone mastectomy, there is a shift of care to the National Screening Programme (NSP) for mammography every 2 years. After breast-conserving therapy follow-up is perfomed by the general practitioner (GP), with mammography every second year and physical examination annually. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects and costs of four different strategies for follow-up after breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

An extended and validated simulation model for breast cancer follow-up was used. The current guidelines for follow-up (baseline strategy) and three less intensive follow-up strategies were evaluated. The main outcome measure was the detection rate of small tumours (2 cm or smaller) and associated costs for each strategy.

RESULTS

Shortening the follow-up time in hospital by shifting care to the NSP or GP after 2 years instead of 5 years of hospital follow-up, lowering the age of referral to the NSP or GP from 60 to 50 years, and termination of annual physical examination by the GP after hospital follow-up did not decrease the detection of small tumours. In addition, a substantial decrease in costs was observed with simplified follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Decreasing hospital follow-up time, lowering the age of referral to the NSP or GP, and termination of annual physical examinations would lead to a substantial reduction in costs while maintaining the possibility of detecting small breast cancers.