Long-Term Risk of Breast Cancer after Diagnosis of Benign Breast Disease by Screening Mammography

Comparisons of assessment pathways after abnormal mammography screening in Denmark, Norway, and Spain

PURPOSE

To ensure high-quality screening programmes and effective utilization of resources, it is important to monitor how cancer detection is affected by different strategies performed at recall assessment. This study aimed to describe procedures performed at recall assessment and compare and evaluate the performance of the assessment in Denmark, Norway, and Spain in terms of screen-detected cancer (SDC) and interval cancer (IC) rates.

METHODS

We included women aged 50-69 years from Denmark, Norway, and Spain, who were recalled for assessment after screening mammography, and recorded all procedures performed during six months after diagnosis, and the timing of the procedures. Women were followed for two years and screen-detected and interval cancer, and sensitivity of recall was calculated and compared.

RESULTS

In total, data from 24,645 Danish, 30,050 Norwegian, and 41,809 Spanish women were included in the study. Most of the women had some assessment within 2 months in all three countries. SDC rates were higher in Denmark (0.57) and Norway (0.60) compared to Spain (0.38), as were the IC rates, i.e. 0.25 and 0.18 vs. 0.12, respectively. The sensitivity of the diagnostic follow-up was somewhat higher in Denmark (98.3%) and Norway (98.2%), compared to Spain (95.4%), but when excluding non-invasive assessment pathways, the sensitivities were comparable.

CONCLUSION

This comparison study showed variation in the assessment procedures used in the three countries as well as the SDC and IC rates and the sensitivity of recall.

New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Breast Cancer Screening

Population-based breast cancer screening using mammography as the gold standard imaging modality has been in clinical practice for over 40 years. However, the limitations of mammography in terms of sensitivity and high false-positive rates, particularly in high-risk women, challenge the indiscriminate nature of population-based screening. Additionally, in light of expanding research on new breast cancer risk factors, there is a growing consensus that breast cancer screening should move toward a risk-adapted approach. Recent advancements in breast imaging technology, including contrast material-enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (US) (automated-breast US, Doppler, elastography US), and especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (abbreviated, ultrafast, and contrast-agent free), may provide new opportunities for risk-adapted personalized screening strategies. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and radiomics techniques has the potential to enhance the performance of risk-adapted screening. This review article summarizes the current evidence and challenges in breast cancer screening and highlights potential future perspectives for various imaging techniques in a risk-adapted breast cancer screening approach. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Evolutionary histories of breast cancer and related clones

Recent studies have documented frequent evolution of clones carrying common cancer mutations in apparently normal tissues, which are implicated in cancer development1-3. However, our knowledge is still missing with regard to what additional driver events take place in what order, before one or more of these clones in normal tissues ultimately evolve to cancer. Here, using phylogenetic analyses of multiple microdissected samples from both cancer and non-cancer lesions, we show unique evolutionary histories of breast cancers harbouring der(1;16), a common driver alteration found in roughly 20% of breast cancers. The approximate timing of early evolutionary events was estimated from the mutation rate measured in normal epithelial cells. In der(1;16)(+) cancers, the derivative chromosome was acquired from early puberty to late adolescence, followed by the emergence of a common ancestor by the patient's early 30s, from which both cancer and non-cancer clones evolved. Replacing the pre-existing mammary epithelium in the following years, these clones occupied a large area within the premenopausal breast tissues by the time of cancer diagnosis. Evolution of multiple independent cancer founders from the non-cancer ancestors was common, contributing to intratumour heterogeneity. The number of driver events did not correlate with histology, suggesting the role of local microenvironments and/or epigenetic driver events. A similar evolutionary pattern was also observed in another case evolving from an AKT1-mutated founder. Taken together, our findings provide new insight into how breast cancer evolves.