Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (Impact Factor: 3.94). 01/2014; 144(1). DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2830-5
Source: PubMed


Overdiagnosis of breast cancer, i.e. the detection of slow-growing tumors that would never have caused symptoms or death, became more prevalent with the implementation of population-based screening. Only rough estimates have been made of the proportion of patients that are overdiagnosed and identification of those patients is difficult. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate whether tumor biology can help identify patients with screen-detected tumors at such a low risk of recurrence that they are likely to be overdiagnosed. Furthermore, we wish to evaluate the impact of the transition from film-screen mammography (FSM) to the more sensitive full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the biology of the tumors detected by each screening-modality. All Dutch breast cancer patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial (EORTC-10041) accrued 2007-2011, who participated in the national screening program (biennial screening ages 50-75) were included (n = 1,165). We calculated the proportions of high-, low- and among those the ultralow-risk tumors according to the 70-gene signature for patients with screen-detected (n = 775) and interval (n = 390) cancers for FSM and FFDM. Screen-detected cancers had significantly more often a low-risk tumor biology (68 %) of which 54 % even an ultralow-risk compared to interval cancers (53 % low-, of which 45 % ultralow-risk (p = 0.001) with an OR of 2.33 (p < 0.0001; 95 % CI 1.73-3.15). FFDM detected significantly more high-risk tumors (35 %) compared to FSM (27 %) (p = 0.011). Aside from favorable clinico-pathological factors, screen-detected cancers were also more likely to have a biologically low-risk or even ultralow-risk tumor. Especially for patients with screen-detected cancers the use of tools, such as the 70-gene signature, to differentiate breast cancers by risk of recurrence may minimize overtreatment. The recent transition in screening-modalities led to an increase in the detection of biologically high-risk cancers using FFDM.

Download full-text


Available from: Fatima Cardoso, Apr 03, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our previous study found cancer detection rates were equivalent for direct radiography compared to screen-film mammography, while rates for computed radiography were significantly lower. This study compares prognostic features of invasive breast cancers by type of mammography. Approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board, this study identified invasive breast cancers diagnosed among concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 screened by direct radiography, computed radiography, or screen-film mammography from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009. During the study period, 816,232 mammograms were performed on 668,418 women, and 3,323 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed. Of 2,642 eligible women contacted, 2,041 participated (77.3 %). The final sample size for analysis included 1,405 screen-detected and 418 interval cancers (diagnosed within 24 months of a negative screening mammogram). Polytomous logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between tumour characteristics and type of mammography, and between tumour characteristics and detection method. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were recorded. Cancers detected by computed radiography compared to screen-film mammography were significantly more likely to be lymph node positive (OR 1.94, 95 %CI 1.01-3.73) and have higher stage (II:I, OR 2.14, 95 %CI 1.11-4.13 and III/IV:I, OR 2.97, 95 %CI 1.02-8.59). Compared to screen-film mammography, significantly more cancers detected by direct radiography (OR 1.64, 95 %CI 1.12-2.38) were lymph node positive. Interval cancers had worse prognostic features compared to screen-detected cancers, irrespective of mammography type. Screening with computed radiography may lead to the detection of cancers with a less favourable stage distribution compared to screen-film mammography that may reflect a delayed diagnosis. Screening programs should re-evaluate their use of computed radiography for breast screening.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 08/2014; 147(2). DOI:10.1007/s10549-014-3088-2 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women, with slightly more than ten percent developing the disease in Western countries. Mammography screening is a well established method to detect breast cancer. Aims The aim of the position statement is to review critically the advantages and shortcomings of population based mammography screening. Materials and methods Literature review and consensus of expert opinion. Results and conclusion Mammography screening programmes vary worldwide. Thus there are differences in the age at which screening is started and stopped and in the screening interval. Furthermore differences in screening quality (such as equipment, technique, resolution, single or double reading, recall rates) result in a sensitivity varying from 70 to 94% between studies. Reporting results of screening is subject to different types of bias such as overdiagnosis. Thus because of the limitations of population-based mammography screening programmes an algorithm for individualized screening is proposed.
    Maturitas 09/2014; 79(4). DOI:10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.09.002 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The aim of this review was to examine the benefits and harms of organized screening mammography, with particular reference to data from Australia. Methods: Published literature was examined relating to the impact of screening mammography on breast cancer-specific mortality, the trends in use of adjuvant treatments for breast cancer, the effectiveness of adjuvant treatment in terms of breast cancer-specific mortality, the impact of breast cancer treatment on non-breast cancer mortality and the magnitude of the issue of over-diagnosis. Results: Most of the recent reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality is explained by use of adjuvant therapy rather than screening mammography. The impact of screening mammography in countries where women present with early disease and have access to adjuvant treatment is modest. There is a wide range of estimates for the magnitude of over-diagnosis. All-cause mortality (rather than breast cancer-specific mortality) should be used when assessing the impact of mammographic screening as otherwise the harm of breast cancer treatment in women who are over-diagnosed will be missed. Conclusions: The benefits and harms of screening mammography are finely balanced. The impact of screening mammography is at best neutral but may result in overall harm. Women should be informed of the issue of over-diagnosis. It is time to review whether organized mammographic screening programs should continue.
    Climacteric 09/2014; 17(S2):1-7. DOI:10.3109/13697137.2014.956718 · 2.26 Impact Factor
Show more