Dataset Information

Left-right breast asymmetry and risk of screen-detected and interval cancers in a large population-based screening population.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the associations between automated volumetric estimates of mammographic asymmetry and breast cancers detected at the same ("contemporaneous") screen, at subsequent screens, or in between (interval cancers).

Methods

Automated measurements from mammographic images (N = 79,731) were used to estimate absolute asymmetry in breast volume (BV) and dense volume (DV) in a large ethnically diverse population of attendees of a UK breast screening programme. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess asymmetry associations with the odds of a breast cancer detected at contemporaneous screen (767 cases), adjusted for relevant confounders.Nested case-control investigations were designed to examine associations between asymmetry and the odds of: (a) interval cancer (numbers of cases/age-matched controls: 153/646) and (b) subsequent screen-detected cancer (345/1438), via conditional logistic regression.

Results

DV, but not BV, asymmetry was positively associated with the odds of contemporaneous breast cancer (P-for-linear-trend (Pt) = 0.018). This association was stronger for first (prevalent) screens (Pt = 0.012). Both DV and BV asymmetry were positively associated with the odds of an interval cancer diagnosis (Pt = 0.060 and 0.030, respectively). Neither BV nor DV asymmetry were associated with the odds of having a subsequent screen-detected cancer.

Conclusions

Increased DV asymmetry was associated with the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis at a contemporaneous screen or as an interval cancer. BV asymmetry was positively associated with the risk of an interval cancer diagnosis.

Advances in knowledge

The findings suggest that DV and BV asymmetry may provide additional signals for detecting contemporaneous cancers and assessing the likelihood of interval cancers in population-based screening programmes.

SUBMITTER: Hudson SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7446006 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Case-control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers. METHOD:We conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (?BIC). RESULTS:For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA?=?2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85-2.92); all ?BIC >?14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P?>?0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all ?BIC >?6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P?>?0.07). CONCLUSION:The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of interval breast cancer risk, irrespective of BMI. Therefore, there are different features of mammographic images that give clinically important information about different outcomes.

Project description:Lung cancer screening identifies cancers with heterogeneous behaviors. Some lung cancers will be identified among patients who had prior negative CT screens and upon follow-up scans develop a de novo nodule that was determined to be cancerous. Other lung cancers will be identified among patients who had one or more prior stable positive scans that were not determined to be lung cancer (indeterminate pulmonary nodules), but in follow-up scans was diagnosed with an incidence lung cancer. Using data from the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, this analysis investigated differences in patient characteristics and survival endpoints between prevalence-, interval-, and screen-detected lung cancers, characterized based on sequence of screening results. Lung cancers immediately following a positive baseline (T0), and prior to the T1 screen, formed the prevalence cohort. Interval cancers were diagnosed following a negative screen at any time point prior to the next screening round. Two cohorts of screen-detected lung cancers (SDLC) were identified that had a baseline positive screen that was that was not determined to be lung cancer (i.e., an indeterminate pulmonary nodule), but in follow-up scans was diagnosed with an incidence lung cancer 12 (SDLC1) or 24 (SDLC2) months later. Two other incidence cohorts had screen-detected lung cancers that had baseline negative screen and upon follow-up scans developed a de novo nodule determined to be cancerous at 12 (SDLC3) or 24 (SDLC4) months later. Differences in patient characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. The lung cancer-specific death rate was higher for SDLC3/SDLC4 compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 lung cancers (136.6/1,000 person-years vs. 71.3/1,000 person-years, P < 0.001). Moreover, PFS and OS were significantly lower for SDLC3/SDLC4 compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 (P < 0.004; P < 0.002, respectively). The findings were consistent when stratified by stage and histology. Multivariable Cox proportional models revealed that the SDLC3/SDLC4 case groups were associated with significantly poorer PFS (HR = 1.89; 95% CI 1.31-2.74) and OS (HR = 1.80; 95% CI 1.21-2.67) compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 lung cancers (HR = 1.00). Lung cancer patients who develop a de novo nodule that determined to be cancerous (i.e., at least one negative CT screen prior to cancer diagnosis) had poorer survival outcomes compared to patients who had at least one positive screen prior to cancer diagnosis. As such, the observation that de novo screen-detected are associated with poorer survival could be attributed to faster growing, more aggressive cancers that arose from a lung environment previously lacking focal abnormalities.

Project description:ObjectivesTo analyze rates, odds ratios (OR), and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers after concordant and discordant initial interpretations and consensus in a population-based screening program.MethodsData were extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway for 487,118 women who participated in BreastScreen Norway, 2006-2017, with 2 years of follow-up. All mammograms were independently interpreted by two radiologists, using a score from 1 (negative) to 5 (high suspicion of cancer). A score of 2+ by one of the two radiologists was defined as discordant and 2+ by both radiologists as concordant positive. Consensus was performed on all discordant and concordant positive, with decisions of recall for further assessment or dismiss. OR was estimated with logistic regression with 95% confidence interval (CI), and histopathological tumor characteristics were analyzed for screen-detected and interval cancer.ResultsAmong screen-detected cancers, 23.0% (697/3024) had discordant scores, while 12.8% (117/911) of the interval cancers were dismissed at index screening. Adjusted OR was 2.4 (95% CI: 1.9-2.9) for interval cancer and 2.8 (95% CI: 2.5-3.2) for subsequent screen-detected cancer for women dismissed at consensus compared to women with concordant negative scores. We found 3.4% (4/117) of the interval cancers diagnosed after being dismissed to be DCIS, compared to 20.3% (12/59) of those with false-positive result after index screening.ConclusionTwenty-three percent of the screen-detected cancers was scored negative by one of the two radiologists. A higher odds of interval and subsequent screen-detected cancer was observed among women dismissed at consensus compared to concordant negative scores. Our findings indicate a benefit of personalized follow-up.Key points• In this study of 487,118 women participating in a screening program using independent double reading with consensus, 23% screen-detected cancers were detected by only one of the two radiologists. • The adjusted odds ratio for interval cancer was 2.4 (95% confidence interval: 1.9, 2.9) for cases dismissed at consensus using concordant negative interpretations as the reference. • Interval cancers diagnosed after being dismissed at consensus or after concordant negative scores had clinically less favorable prognostic tumor characteristics compared to those diagnosed after false-positive results.