Dataset Information

Advanced Breast Cancer Definitions by Staging System Examined in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Advanced breast cancer is an outcome used to evaluate screening effectiveness. The advanced cancer definition resulting in the best discrimination of breast cancer death has not been studied in a breast imaging population.

Methods

A total of 52 496 women aged 40-79 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium diagnosed with invasive cancer were staged using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) anatomic and prognostic pathologic systems and Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) tumor categories. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 5-year breast cancer death and the sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for 3 advanced cancer classifications: anatomic stage IIB or higher, prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer.

Results

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage, and TMIST tumor categories were 0.826 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.817 to 0.835), 0.856 (95% CI = 0.846 to 0.866), and 0.789 (95% CI = 0.780 to 0.797), respectively. AJCC prognostic pathologic stage had statistically significantly better discrimination than AJCC anatomic stage (difference = 0.030, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.024 to 0.037) and TMIST tumor categories (difference = 0.067, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.059 to 0.075). The sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage IIB or higher, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer were 72.6%, 76.7%, and 96.1%; and 78.9%, 81.6%, and 41.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

Defining advanced cancer as AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher most accurately predicts breast cancer death. Use of this definition by investigators will facilitate comparing breast cancer screening effectiveness studies.

SUBMITTER: Kerlikowske K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491791 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:First-degree family history is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, but controversy exists about the magnitude of the association among older women. Objective:To determine whether first-degree family history is associated with increased risk of breast cancer among older women, and identify whether the association varies by breast density. Design, Setting, and Participants:Prospective cohort study between 1996 and 2012 from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries located in New Hampshire, North Carolina, San Francisco Bay area, western Washington state, New Mexico, Colorado, and Vermont. During a mean (SD) follow-up of 6.3 (3.2) years, 10?929 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed in a cohort of 403?268 women 65 years and older with data from 472?220 mammography examinations. We estimated the 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer by first-degree family history, breast density, and age groups. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate the association of first-degree family history with risk of invasive breast cancer (after adjustment for breast density, BCSC registry, race/ethnicity, body mass index, postmenopausal hormone therapy use, and benign breast disease for age groups 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older, separately). Data analyses were performed between June 2016 and June 2017. Exposure:First-degree family history of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures:Incident breast cancer. Results:In 403 268 women 65 years and older, first-degree family history was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among women ages 65 to 74 years (hazard ratio [HR],?1.48; 95% CI, 1.35-1.61) and 75 years and older (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.62). Estimates were similar for women 65 to 74 years with first-degree relative's diagnosis age younger than 50 years (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.25-1.73) vs 50 years and older (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) and for women ages 75 years and older with the relative's diagnosis age younger than 50 years (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.63) vs 50 years and older (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.33-1.81). Among women ages 65 to 74 years, the risk associated with first-degree family history was highest among those with fatty breasts (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.27-2.21), whereas in women 75 years and older the risk associated with family history was highest among those with dense breasts (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.87). Conclusions and Relevance:First-degree family history was associated with increased risk of invasive breast cancer in all subgroups of older women irrespective of a relative's age at diagnosis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) breast cancer staging system provides important prognostic information. The recently published eighth edition incorporates biological markers and recommends the use of a complex "prognostic stage." In this study, we assessed the relationship between stage, breast cancer subtype, grade, and outcome in a large population-based cohort and evaluated a risk score system incorporating tumor characteristic to the AJCC anatomic staging system. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer stage I-IV between 2005-2008 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. For patients with stage I-III disease, pathologic stage was recorded. For patients with stage IV disease, clinical stage was utilized. Five-year breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) rates were determined for each potential tumor size-node involvement-metastases (TNM) combination according to breast cancer subtype. A risk score point-based system using grade, estrogen receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status was designed to complement the anatomic AJCC staging system. Survival probabilities between groups were compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used. RESULTS:Among 43,938 patients, we observed differences in 5-year BCSS and OS for each TNM combination according to breast cancer subtype. The most favorable outcomes were seen for hormone receptor-positive tumors followed closely by HER2-positive tumors, with the worst outcomes observed for triple negative breast cancer. Our risk score system separated patients into four risk groups within each stage category (all p?<?.05). CONCLUSION:Our simple risk score system incorporates biological factors into the AJCC anatomic staging system, providing accurate prognostic information. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This study demonstrates that stage, but also breast cancer subtype and grade, define prognosis in a large population of breast cancer patients. It shows that a point-based risk score system that incorporates these biological factors provides refined stratification and information on prognosis, improving the anatomic American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. In addition, the overall mortality and breast cancer specific mortality rates detailed here provide much-needed information about prognosis in the current era, refining the current AJCC staging.

Project description:Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography and assess performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study measured the performance of digital screening mammography interpreted by 359 radiologists across 95 facilities in six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The study included 1 682 504 digital screening mammograms performed between 2007 and 2013 in 792 808 women. Performance measures were calculated according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th edition, and were compared with published benchmarks by the BCSC, the National Mammography Database, and performance recommendations by expert opinion. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance metrics across radiologists and were presented as 50th (median), 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, with graphic presentations using smoothed curves. Results Mean screening performance measures were as follows: abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), 11.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5, 11.6); cancers detected per 1000 screens, or cancer detection rate (CDR), 5.1 (95% CI: 5.0, 5.2); sensitivity, 86.9% (95% CI: 86.3%, 87.6%); specificity, 88.9% (95% CI: 88.8%, 88.9%); false-negative rate per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 0.8); positive predictive value (PPV) 1, 4.4% (95% CI: 4.3%, 4.5%); PPV2, 25.6% (95% CI: 25.1%, 26.1%); PPV3, 28.6% (95% CI: 28.0%, 29.3%); cancers stage 0 or 1, 76.9%; minimal cancers, 57.7%; and node-negative invasive cancers, 79.4%. Recommended CDRs were achieved by 92.1% of radiologists in community practice, and 97.1% achieved recommended ranges for sensitivity. Only 59.0% of radiologists achieved recommended AIRs, and only 63.0% achieved recommended levels of specificity. Conclusion The majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass cancer detection recommendations for screening mammography; however, AIRs continue to be higher than the recommended rate for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Project description:Purpose To establish contemporary performance benchmarks for diagnostic digital mammography with use of recent data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained for active or passive consenting processes or to obtain a waiver of consent to enroll participants, link data, and perform analyses. Data were obtained from six BCSC registries (418 radiologists, 92 radiology facilities). Mammogram indication and assessments were prospectively collected for women undergoing diagnostic digital mammography and linked with cancer diagnoses from state cancer registries. The study included 401 548 examinations conducted from 2007 to 2013 in 265 360 women. Results Overall diagnostic performance measures were as follows: cancer detection rate, 34.7 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.1, 35.2); abnormal interpretation rate, 12.6% (95% CI: 12.5%, 12.7%); positive predictive value (PPV) of a biopsy recommendation (PPV2), 27.5% (95% CI: 27.1%, 27.9%); PPV of biopsies performed (PPV3), 30.4% (95% CI: 29.9%, 30.9%); false-negative rate, 4.8 per 1000 (95% CI: 4.6, 5.0); sensitivity, 87.8% (95% CI: 87.3%, 88.4%); and specificity, 90.5% (95% CI: 90.4%, 90.6%). Among cancers detected, 63.4% were stage 0 or 1 cancers, 45.6% were minimal cancers, the mean size of invasive cancers was 21.2 mm, and 69.6% of invasive cancers were node negative. Performance metrics varied widely across diagnostic indications, with cancer detection rate (64.5 per 1000) and abnormal interpretation rate (18.7%) highest for diagnostic mammograms obtained to evaluate a breast problem with a lump. Compared with performance during the screen-film mammography era, diagnostic digital performance showed increased abnormal interpretation and cancer detection rates and decreasing PPVs, with less than 70% of radiologists within acceptable ranges for PPV2 and PPV3. Conclusion These performance measures can serve as national benchmarks that may help transform the marked variation in radiologists' diagnostic performance into targeted quality improvement efforts. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.