Dataset Information

Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are at risk of developing another breast cancer and are recommended for screening mammography. Few high-quality data exist on screening performance in PHBC women.To examine the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in PHBC women relative to screening of similar women without PHBC.Cohort of PHBC women, mammogram matched to non-PHBC women, screened through facilities (1996-2007) affiliated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.There were 58,870 screening mammograms in 19,078 women with a history of early-stage (in situ or stage I-II invasive) breast cancer and 58,870 matched (breast density, age group, mammography year, and registry) screening mammograms in 55,315 non-PHBC women.Mammography accuracy based on final assessment, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, and stage at diagnosis.Within 1 year after screening, 655 cancers were observed in PHBC women (499 invasive, 156 in situ) and 342 cancers (285 invasive, 57 in situ) in non-PHBC women. Screening accuracy and outcomes in PHBC relative to non-PHBC women were cancer rates of 10.5 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 9.7-11.3) vs 5.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 5.2-6.4), cancer detection rate of 6.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 6.2-7.5) vs 4.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.9-5.0), interval cancer rate of 3.6 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.2-4.1) vs 1.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 1.1-1.7), sensitivity 65.4% (95% CI, 61.5%-69.0%) vs 76.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-80.7%), specificity 98.3% (95% CI, 98.2%-98.4%) vs 99.0% (95% CI, 98.9%-99.1%), abnormal mammogram results in 2.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-2.5%) vs 1.4% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.5%) (all comparisons P < .001). Screening sensitivity in PHBC women was higher for detection of in situ cancer (78.7%; 95% CI, 71.4%-84.5%) than invasive cancer (61.1%; 95% CI, 56.6%-65.4%), P < .001; lower in the initial 5 years (60.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-65.5%) than after 5 years from first cancer (70.8%; 95% CI, 65.4%-75.6%), P = .006; and was similar for detection of ipsilateral cancer (66.3%; 95% CI, 60.3%-71.8%) and contralateral cancer (66.1%; 95% CI, 60.9%-70.9%), P = .96. Screen-detected and interval cancers in women with and without PHBC were predominantly early stage.Mammography screening in PHBC women detects early-stage second breast cancers but has lower sensitivity and higher interval cancer rate, despite more evaluation and higher underlying cancer rate, relative to that in non-PHBC women.

SUBMITTER: Houssami N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3799940 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.

Houssami Nehmat N Abraham Linn A LA Miglioretti Diana L DL Sickles Edward A EA Kerlikowske Karla K Buist Diana S M DS Geller Berta M BM Muss Hyman B HB Irwig Les L

JAMA 20110201 8

<h4>Context</h4>Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are at risk of developing another breast cancer and are recommended for screening mammography. Few high-quality data exist on screening performance in PHBC women.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in PHBC women relative to screening of similar women without PHBC.<h4>Design and setting</h4>Cohort of PHBC women, mammogram matched to non-PHBC women, screened through facilities (1996-20 ...[more]

PMID: 21343578

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background There is lack of consensus regarding the use of breast MRI for routine surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Purpose To compare performance of surveillance mammography with breast MRI. Materials and Methods This observational cohort study used prospectively collected data and included 13 266 women age 18 years and older (mean age, 60 years ± 13) with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent 33 938 mammographic examinations and 2506 breast MRI examinations from 2005 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Women were categorized into two groups: mammography alone (n = 11 745) or breast MRI (n = 1521). Performance measures were calculated by using end-of-day assessment and occurrence of second breast cancer events within 1 year of imaging. Logistic regression was used to compare performance for breast MRI versus mammography alone, adjusting for women, examination, and primary breast cancer characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a per-examination basis. Results Breast MRI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, chemotherapy, and higher education and income. Raw performance measures for breast MRI versus mammography were as follows, respectively: cancer detection rates, 10.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7, 14.8) versus 8.2 (95% CI: 7.3, 9.2) per 1000 examinations; sensitivity, 61.4% (27 of 44; 95% CI: 46.5%, 76.2%) versus 70.3% (279 of 397; 95% CI: 65.8%, 74.8%); and biopsy rate, 10.1% (253 of 2506; 95% CI: 8.9%, 11.3%) versus 4.0% (1343 of 33 938; 95% CI: 3.7%, 4.2%). In multivariable models, breast MRI was associated with higher biopsy rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.7; P < .001) and cancer detection rate (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7; P = .03) than mammography alone. However, there were no differences in sensitivity (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.9; P = .84) or interval cancer rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .70). Conclusion Comparison of the performance of surveillance breast MRI with mammography must account for patient characteristics. Whereas breast MRI leads to higher biopsy and cancer detection rates, there were no significant differences in sensitivity or interval cancers compared with mammography. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

Project description:Importance:There is little evidence on population-based harms and benefits of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). Objective:To evaluate biopsy rates and yield in the 90 days following screening (mammography vs magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography) among women with and without a PHBC. Design, Setting, and Participants:Observational cohort study of 6 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Population-based sample of 812?164 women undergoing screening, 2003 through 2013. Exposures:A total of 2?048?994 digital mammography and/or breast MRI screening episodes (mammogram alone vs MRI?with or without?screening mammogram within 30 days). Main Outcomes and Measures:Biopsy intensity (surgical?greater than?core?greater than?fine-needle aspiration) and yield (invasive cancer greater than?ductal carcinoma in situ greater than?high-risk benign?greater than?benign) within 90 days of a screening episode. We computed age-adjusted rates of biopsy intensity (per 1000 screening episodes) and biopsy yield (per 1000 screening episodes with biopsies). Outcomes were stratified by PHBC and by BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk among women without PHBC. Results:We included 101?103 and 1?939?455 mammogram screening episodes in women with and without PHBC, respectively; MRI screening episodes included 3763 with PHBC and 4673 without PHBC. Age-adjusted core and surgical biopsy rates (per 1000 episodes) doubled (57.1; 95% CI, 50.3-65.1) following MRI compared with mammography (23.6; 95% CI, 22.4-24.8) in women with PHBC. Differences (per 1000 episodes) were even larger in women without PHBC: 84.7 (95% CI, 75.9-94.9) following MRI and 14.9 (95% CI, 14.7-15.0) following mammography episodes. Ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive biopsy yield (per 1000 episodes) was significantly higher following mammography compared with MRI episodes in women with PHBC (mammography, 404.6; 95% CI, 381.2-428.8; MRI, 267.6; 95% CI, 208.0-337.8) and nonsignificantly higher, but in the same direction, in women without PHBC (mammography, 279.3; 95% CI, 274.2-284.4; MRI, 214.6; 95% CI, 158.7-280.8). High-risk benign lesions were more commonly identified following MRI regardless of PHBC. Higher biopsy rates and lower cancer yield following MRI were not explained by increasing age or higher 5-year breast cancer risk. Conclusions and Relevance:Women with and without PHBC who undergo screening MRI experience higher biopsy rates coupled with significantly lower cancer yield findings following biopsy compared with screening mammography alone. Further work is needed to identify women who will benefit from screening MRI to ensure an acceptable benefit-to-harm ratio.

Project description:PurposeTimely mammography to screen for breast cancer in accordance with the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations can reduce morbidity and mortality substantially. This study assessed whether the odds of undergoing screening mammography are similar for women with and without visual impairment (VI).DesignRetrospective, longitudinal cohort study.ParticipantsWomen aged 65 to 72 years enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2015.MethodsPatients with no vision loss (NVL), partial vision loss (PVL), and severe vision loss (SVL) were matched 1:1:1 based on age, race, time in Medicare, urbanicity of residence, and overall health. Women with pre-existing breast cancer were excluded. Multivariable conditional logistic regression modeling compared the odds of undergoing screening mammography within a 2-year follow-up period among the 3 groups.Main outcomes measuresProportion of participants undergoing mammography and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of undergoing mammography within 2 years of follow-up.ResultsA total of 1044 patients were matched (348 in each group). The mean ± standard deviation age at the index date was 69.0 ± 1.5 years for all 3 groups. The proportion of women undergoing 1 mammography screening or more within the 2-year follow-up was 69.0% (n = 240), 56.9% (n = 198), and 56.0% (n = 195) for the NVL, PVL, and SVL groups, respectively (P = 0.0005). The mean ± standard deviation number of mammography screenings undergone per patient during the 5-year period (3-year look-back plus 2-year follow-up) was 3.1 ± 2.0, 2.5 ± 2.0, and 2.3 ± 2.1 for the NVL, PVL, and SVL groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). Women with SVL had 42% decreased odds (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.90; P = 0.01), and those with PVL had 44% decreased odds (OR, 0.56; CI, 0.36-0.87; P = 0.009) of undergoing mammography during follow-up compared with those with NVL.ConclusionsWomen with VI were significantly less likely to undergo mammography screening for breast cancer than women without VI. Clinicians should look for ways to help ensure that patients with VI undergo mammography and other preventive screenings as recommended by the USPSTF.

Project description:ContextScreening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography.ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsFrom April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants.Main outcome measuresDiagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone.ResultsForty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%).ConclusionsAdding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Project description:PURPOSE:To investigate the feasibility of abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) in women with a personal history (PH) of breast cancer as a screening tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 1880 screening AB-MRIs in 763 women with a PH of breast cancer (median age, 55 years; range, 23-89 years) between October 2015 and October 2016. The total acquisition times of AB-MRI were 8.3 min and 2.8 min with and without T2-weighted imaging, respectively. The tissue diagnosis or one-year follow-up status was used as the reference standard. The characteristics of tumor recurrences detected on AB-MRI screenings were analyzed. The cancer detection rates (CDRs) and additional CDRs for the 1st round and overall rounds of AB-MRI screening were calculated. The recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values for recall (PPV1) and biopsy (PPV3) for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were calculated. The diagnostic performance of the combination of mammography and ultrasonography was compared with that of AB-MRI by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS:Fifteen of a total of 21 recurrences were detected on the 1st round of AB-MRI screening: 93.3% were node-negative T1 tumors (median tumor size, 1.02 cm; range, 0.1-2 cm) or Tis; 66.7% were high-grade tumors; 8 of these 15 were mammographically and ultrasonographically occult. The CDR and additional CDR for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were 0.019 and 0.010 per woman, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, PPV1 and PPV3 for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were 100%, 96.0%, 14.3%, 13.8% and 58.3%, respectively. For detecting secondary cancer, AB-MRI showed a higher sensitivity and PPV than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (95.2%, 57.1% vs 47.6%, 38.5%). The area under the ROC curve was higher for AB-MRI (0.966; 95% CI: 0.951-0.978) than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (0.727; 95% CI: 0.694-0.759) (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION:AB-MRI improved cancer detection with a high specificity, sensitivity and PPV in women with a PH of breast cancer. AB-MRI could be a useful screening tool for detecting secondary cancer considering its high diagnostic performance and short examination time.

Project description:BackgroundNational patterns of breast imaging in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are unknown making evaluation of annual surveillance recommendations a challenge.ObjectiveTo describe variation in use of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations beginning 6 months after diagnosis among women with PHBC in US community practice. We report on the breast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type.DesignLongitudinal study using cross-sectional data.SettingBreast Cancer Surveillance Consortium breast imaging facilities.Participants19,955 women diagnosed between 2005 and 2012 with AJCC stage 0-III incident breast cancer who had 69,386 mammograms and 3,553 breast MRI examinations from January 2005 to September 2013; median follow-up of 37.6 months (interquartile range, 22.1-60.7).Main measuresBreast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type.Key resultsAmong women with a PHBC who received breast imaging, 89.4% underwent mammography alone, 0.8% MRI alone, and 10.3% had both mammography and MRI. About half of mammograms and MRIs were indicated for surveillance vs. diagnostic, with an increase in the proportion of surveillance exams as time from diagnosis increased (mammograms, 45.7% at 1 year to 72.2% after 5 years; MRIs, 54.8% at 1 year to 78.6% after 5 years). In the first post-diagnosis period, 32.8% of women had > 2 breast imaging examinations and of these, 65.8% were less than 6 months apart. During the first 5-year post-diagnosis, the frequency of examinations per year decreased and the interval between examinations shifted towards annual examinations.ConclusionIn women with a PHBC who received post-diagnosis imaging, a third underwent multiple breast imaging examinations per year during the first 2-year post-diagnosis despite recommendations for annual exams. As time since diagnosis increases, imaging indication shifts from diagnostic to surveillance.

Dataset Information

Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.

Publications

Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets