Dataset Information

Using Risk Stratification to Optimize Mammography Screening in Chinese Women.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening among Chinese women remains contentious. Here, we characterized breast cancer (BC) epidemiology in Hong Kong and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of personalized risk-based screening.

Methods

We used the Hong Kong Breast Cancer Study (a case-control study with 3501 cases and 3610 controls) and Hong Kong Cancer Registry to develop a risk stratification model based on well-documented risk factors. We used the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study to validate the model. We considered risk-based programs with different screening age ranges and risk thresholds under which women were eligible to join if their remaining BC risk at the starting age exceeded the threshold.

Results

The lifetime risk (15-99 years) of BC ranged from 1.8% to 26.6% with a mean of 6.8%. Biennial screening was most cost-effective when the starting age was 44 years, and screening from age 44 to 69 years would reduce breast cancer mortality by 25.4% (95% credible interval [CrI] = 20.5%-29.4%) for all risk strata. If the risk threshold for this screening program was 8.4% (the average remaining BC risk among US women at their recommended starting age of 50 years), the coverage was 25.8%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$18 151 (95% CrI = $10 408-$27 663) per quality-of-life-year (QALY) compared with no screening. The ICER of universal screening was $34 953 (95% CrI = $22 820-$50 268) and $48 303 (95% CrI = $32 210-$68 000) per QALY compared with no screening and risk-based screening with 8.4% threshold, respectively.

Conclusion

Organized BC screening in Chinese women should commence as risk-based programs. Outcome data (e.g., QALY loss because of false-positive mammograms) should be systemically collected for optimizing the risk threshold.

SUBMITTER: Leung K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8346705 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDecades of persuasive messages have reinforced the importance of traditional screening mammography at regular intervals. A potential new paradigm, risk-based screening, adjusts mammography frequency based on a woman's estimated breast cancer risk in order to maximize mortality reduction while minimizing false positives and overdiagnosis. Women's views of risk-based screening are unknown.ObjectiveTo explore women's views and personal acceptability of a potential risk-based mammography screening paradigm.DesignFour semi-structured focus group discussions about screening mammography and surveys before provision of information about risk-based screening. We analyzed coded focus group transcripts using a mixed deductive (content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 29 women (40-74 years old) with no personal history of breast cancer recruited by print and online media in New Hampshire and Vermont.ResultsTwenty-seven out of 29 women reported having undergone mammography screening. All participants were white and most were highly educated. Some women accepted the idea that early cancer detection with traditional screening was beneficial-although many also reported hearing inconsistent recommendations from clinicians and mixed messages from media reports about mammography. Some women were familiar with a risk-based screening paradigm (primarily related to cervical cancer, n = 8) and thought matching screening mammography frequency to personal risk made sense (n = 8). Personal acceptability of risk-based screening was mixed. Some believed risk-based screening could reduce the harms of false positives and overdiagnosis (n = 7). Others thought screening less often might result in missing a dangerous diagnosis (n = 14). Many (n = 18) expressed concerns about the feasibility of risk-based screening and questioned whether breast cancer risk estimates could be accurate. Some suspected that risk-based mammography was motivated by a desire to save money (n = 6).ConclusionSome women thought risk-based screening made sense. Willingness to abandon traditional screening for the new paradigm was mixed. Broad acceptability of risk-based screening will require clearer communication about its rationale and feasibility and consistent messages from the health care team.

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:Guidelines recommend individualizing screening mammography decisions for women aged 75 years and older. However, little pragmatic guidance is available to help counsel patients.To provide an evidence-based approach for individualizing decision-making about screening mammography in older women.We searched PubMed for English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals published from January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2014, to identify risk factors for late-life breast cancer in women aged 65 years and older and to quantify the benefits and harms of screening mammography for women aged 75 years and older.Age is the major risk factor for developing and dying from breast cancer. Breast cancer risk factors that reflect hormonal exposures in the distant past, such as age at first birth or age at menarche, are less predictive of late-life breast cancer than factors indicating recent hormonal exposures such as high bone mass or obesity. Randomized trials of the benefits of screening mammography did not include women older than 74 years. Thus it is not known if screening mammography benefits older women. Observational studies favor extending screening mammography to older women who have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. Modeling studies estimate 2 fewer breast cancer deaths/1000 women who in their 70s continue biennial screening for 10 years instead of stopping screening at age 69. Potential harms of continued screening over 10 years include false-positive mammograms in approximately 200/1000 women screened and overdiagnosis (ie, finding breast cancer that would not have clinically surfaced otherwise) in approximately 13/1000 women screened. Providing information about life expectancy along with potential benefits and harms of screening may help older women's decision-making about screening mammography.For women with less than a 10-year life expectancy, recommendations to stop screening mammography should emphasize increased potential harms from screening and highlight health promotion measures likely to be beneficial over the short term. For women with a life expectancy of more than 10 years, deciding whether potential benefits of screening outweigh harms becomes a value judgment for patients, requiring a realistic understanding of screening outcomes.

Project description:Importance:Whole-breast ultrasonography has been advocated to supplement screening mammography to improve outcomes in women with dense breasts. Objective:To determine the performance of screening mammography plus screening ultrasonography compared with screening mammography alone in community practice. Design, Setting, and Participants:Observational cohort study. Two Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected data on screening mammography with vs without same-day breast ultrasonography from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2013. The dates of analysis were March 2014 to December 2018. A total of 6081 screening mammography plus same-day screening ultrasonography examinations in 3386 women were propensity score matched 1:5 to 30 062 screening mammograms without screening ultrasonography in 15 176 women from a sample of 113 293 mammograms. Exclusion criteria included a personal history of breast cancer and self-reported breast symptoms. Exposures:Screening mammography with vs without screening ultrasonography. Main Outcomes and Measures:Cancer detection rate and rates of interval cancer, false-positive biopsy recommendation, short-interval follow-up, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation were estimated and compared using log binomial regression. Results:Screening mammography with vs without ultrasonography examinations was performed more often in women with dense breasts (74.3% [n = 4317 of 5810] vs 35.9% [n = 39 928 of 111 306] in the overall sample), in women who were younger than 50 years (49.7% [n = 3022 of 6081] vs 31.7% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]), and in women with a family history of breast cancer (42.9% [n = 2595 of 6055] vs 15.0% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]). While 21.4% (n = 1154 of 5392) of screening ultrasonography examinations were performed in women with high or very high (≥2.50%) Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk scores, 53.6% (n = 2889 of 5392) had low or average (<1.67%) risk. Comparing mammography plus ultrasonography with mammography alone, the cancer detection rate was similar at 5.4 vs 5.5 per 1000 screens (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.68), as were interval cancer rates at 1.5 vs 1.9 per 1000 screens (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.33-1.37). The false-positive biopsy rates were significantly higher at 52.0 vs 22.2 per 1000 screens (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.93-2.58), as was short-interval follow-up at 3.9% vs 1.1% (RR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.60-3.70). The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was significantly lower at 9.5% vs 21.4% (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71). Conclusions and Relevance:In a relatively young population of women at low, intermediate, and high breast cancer risk, these results suggest that the benefits of supplemental ultrasonography screening may not outweigh associated harms.

Project description:BackgroundLower mammography screening rates among minority and low income women contribute to increased morbidity and mortality from breast cancer.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a patient navigation intervention on adherence rates to biennial screening mammography among women engaged in primary care at an inner-city academic medical center.DesignQuality improvement intervention with a concurrent control group, conducted from February to November of 2008.Study subjectsAll women in a hospital-based primary care practice aged 51-70 years. Subjects were randomized at the level of their primary care provider, such that half of the patients in the practice received the intervention, while the other half received usual care.InterventionsIntervention subjects whose last mammogram was >18 months prior received a combination of telephone calls and reminder letters from patient navigators trained to identify barriers to care. Navigators were integrated into primary care teams and interacted directly with patients, providers, and radiology to coordinate care. Navigators utilized an electronic report to track subjects. Adherence rates to biennial mammography were assessed in intervention and control groups at baseline and post-intervention.Key resultsA total of 3,895 women were randomized to intervention (n = 1,817) and control (n = 2,078) groups. Mean age was 60, 71% were racial/ethnic minorities, 23% were non-English speaking, and 63% had public or no health insurance. At baseline, there was no difference in mammography adherence between the control and intervention groups (78%, respectively, p = 0.55). After the 9-month intervention, mammogram adherence was higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (87% vs. 76%, respectively, p < 0.001). Except among Hispanic women who demonstrated high rates in both the intervention and control groups (85% and 83%, respectively), all racial/ethnic and insurance groups demonstrated higher adherence in the intervention group.ConclusionsPatient navigation improves biennial mammography rates for inner city, low income, minority populations.