Dataset Information

Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Drukker CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3924026 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAttention in the 2000s on the importance of mammographic density led us to study screening sensitivity, breast cancer incidence, and associations with risk factors by mammographic density in Danish breast cancer screening programs. Here, we summarise our approaches and findings.MethodsDichotomized density codes: fatty, equal to BI-RADS density code 1 and part of 2, and other mixed/dense data from the 1990s-were available from two counties, and BI-RADS density codes from one region were available from 2012/13. Density data were linked with data on vital status, incident breast cancer, and potential risk factors. We calculated screening sensitivity by combining data on screen-detected and interval cancers. We used cohorts to study high density as a predictor of breast cancer risk; cross-sectional data to study the association between life style factors and density, adjusting for age and body mass index (BMI); and time trends to study the prevalence of high density across birth cohorts.ResultsSensitivity decreased with increasing density from 78% in women with BI-RADS 1 to 47% in those with BI-RADS 4. For women with mixed/dense compared with those with fatty breasts, the rate ratio of incident breast cancer was 2.45 (95% CI 2.14-2.81). The percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts decreased with age, but at a higher rate the later the women were born. Among users of postmenopausal hormone therapy, the percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts was higher than in non-users, but the patterns across birth cohorts were similar. The occurrence of mixed/dense breast at screening age decreased by a z-score unit of BMI at age 13-odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.53-0.58)-and so did breast cancer risk and hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.84-1.00), but it changed to HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93-1.11) when controlled for density. Age and BMI adjusted associations between life style factors and density were largely close to unity; physical activity OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.93-1.21); alcohol consumption OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.81-1.27); air pollution OR 0.96 (95% 0.93-1.01) per 20 ?g/m3; and traffic noise OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-1.03) per 10 dB. Weak negative associations were seen for diabetes OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.40-0.92) and cigarette smoking OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75-0.99), and a positive association was found with hormone therapy OR 1.24 (95% 1.14-1.35).ConclusionOur data indicate that breast tissue in middle-aged women is highly dependent on childhood body constitution while adult life-style plays a modest role, underlying the need for a long-term perspective in primary prevention of breast cancer.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:While Cumulus - a semi-automated method for measuring breast density - is utilised extensively in research, it is labour-intensive and unsuitable for screening programmes that require an efficient and valid measure on which to base screening recommendations. We develop an automated method to measure breast density (AutoDensity) and compare it to Cumulus in terms of association with breast cancer risk and breast cancer screening outcomes. METHODS:AutoDensity automatically identifies the breast area in the mammogram and classifies breast density in a similar way to Cumulus, through a fast, stand-alone Windows or Linux program. Our sample comprised 985 women with screen-detected cancers, 367 women with interval cancers and 4,975 controls (women who did not have cancer), sampled from first and subsequent screening rounds of a film mammography screening programme. To test the validity of AutoDensity, we compared the effect estimates using AutoDensity with those using Cumulus from logistic regression models that tested the association between breast density and breast cancer risk, risk of small and large screen-detected cancers and interval cancers, and screening programme sensitivity (the proportion of cancers that are screen-detected). As a secondary analysis, we report on correlation between AutoDensity and Cumulus measures. RESULTS:AutoDensity performed similarly to Cumulus in all associations tested. For example, using AutoDensity, the odds ratios for women in the highest decile of breast density compared to women in the lowest quintile for invasive breast cancer, interval cancers, large and small screen-detected cancers were 3.2 (95% CI 2.5 to 4.1), 4.7 (95% CI 3.0 to 7.4), 6.4 (95% CI 3.7 to 11.1) and 2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.0) respectively. For Cumulus the corresponding odds ratios were: 2.4 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.1), 4.1 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.3), 6.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 11.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.8). Correlation between Cumulus and AutoDensity measures was 0.63 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Based on the similarity of the effect estimates for AutoDensity and Cumulus inmodels of breast density and breast cancer risk and screening outcomes, we conclude that AutoDensity is a valid automated method for measuring breast density from digitised film mammograms.

Dataset Information

Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets