Diagnostic outcome of repeated mammography screening

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.

Women's patterns of participation in mammography screening in Denmark

The objective of the study is to analyse individual women's participation patterns in mammography screening in Denmark. The study is set in the capital of Copenhagen and the county of Fyn representing around 95,000 women aged 50-69. The Central Population Register (CPR) was used to define the total target group, and supply information on migrations and deaths. Invitation and participation data came from the mammography screening programmes in Copenhagen (1991-1999) and Fyn (1993-2001), containing personal identification number, data on invitation date, participation and examination date for each screening round. In Copenhagen the coverage went from 70.5% in the first round to 63.1% in the fourth round, and the equivalent data for Fyn is 84.6% in the first round and 82.8% in the fourth round. Of the women eligible for at least three invitation rounds, 52.6% in Copenhagen and 76.4% in Fyn were faithful users, i.e. had participated in all screenings they were invited to. The conclusion is that the programme participation rates tend to overestimate the protection of the individual women covered by the programme. Behind the urban-rural gradient in programme participation is an even greater gradient in programme protection.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (June 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven completed and eligible trials involving half a million women were identified. We excluded a biased trial from analysis. Two trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, relative risk (RR) 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.09) at 13 years; four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, RR 0.75 (0.67 to 0.83) (P = 0.02 for difference between the two estimates). RR for all six trials combined was 0.80 (0.73 to 0.88). The two trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, RR 1.02 (0.95 to 1.10) after 10 years, or on all-cause mortality, RR 1.00 (0.96 to 1.04) after 13 years. We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups, RR 1.31 (1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening likely reduces breast cancer mortality. Based on all trials, the reduction is 20%, but as the effect is lower in the highest quality trials, a more reasonable estimate is a 15% relative risk reduction. Based on the risk level of women in these trials, the absolute risk reduction was 0.05%. Screening also leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, with an estimated 30% increase, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both benefits and harms.

Survival after treatment for breast cancer in a geographically defined population

Background

South East Sweden with 976 000 inhabitants is served by nine hospitals with specialized breast surgeons. Population-based mammographic screening was introduced in 1986 for women aged 40–74 years. Patients with primary breast cancer were treated according to a joint management programme.

Methods

All patients were reported to a regional cancer registry from which breast cancer incidence, treatment and survival in this defined population were reported.

Results

A total of 7892 women had their first invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 1999. The median tumour size was 17 mm and 29·9 per cent had axillary metastases. Some 49·8 per cent of these women had a modified radical mastectomy and 31·9 per cent had a segmental resection with axillary clearance. Postoperative radiotherapy was given to 40·3 per cent of the women after mastectomy and to 87·1 per cent after breast-conserving surgery. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy were used as adjuvant treatment except in low-risk patients. Breast cancer-specific survival rate for all stages was 83·5 per cent at 5 years and 74·0 per cent at 10 years. Respective values were 95·8 and 90·9 per cent for patients with stage T1 N0 M0 tumours, and 77·7 and 62·4 per cent for those with T1–2 N1 M0 tumours.

Conclusion

Breast specialists treating women with breast cancer according to a joint management programme have achieved very good survival rates.

Reporting of performance indicators of mammography screening in Europe

We compared short-term indicators for service mammography screening in Europe. Data were available from 17 programmes, although not all programmes provided a comprehensive reporting. More than 90% of the target population had been screened within the last 3 years in the WE trial, whereas only two-thirds of women in England and Copenhagen had been screened within the last 3 years, which will delay or reduce the effect of screening compared with the trial. Participation was highest in sparsely populated areas. Detection rates at first screen reached three times the baseline in Copenhagen, the Netherlands and North-West England. The clinical characteristics of screen-detected cases were badly reported. Given their importance for the long-term effect of screening, further data are warranted. Sensitivity and specificity could be measured only indirectly; they showed, however, considerable variation between programmes. Fyn, Florence and Stockholm had succeeded in combining high specificity with high sensitivity. With different recall policies, different proportions of women will experience a false-positive test; expected numbers after three screens were 14%, 10% and 1%, for England, Copenhagen and the Netherlands, respectively. Based on the observed wide variation in short-term indicators, a similar wide variation is expected in the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality.

Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of breast computed tomography (CT) in terms of radiation dose and image quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Validated Monte Carlo simulation techniques were used to estimate the average glandular dose (AGD). The calculated photon fluence at the detector for high-quality abdominal CT (120 kVp, 300 mAs, 5-mm section thickness) was the benchmark for assessing the milliampere seconds and corresponding radiation dose necessary for breast CT. Image noise was measured by using a 10-cm-diameter cylinder imaged with a clinical CT scanner at 10-300 mAs for 80, 100, and 120 kVp. A cadaveric breast was imaged in the coronal plane to approximate the acquisition geometry of a proposed breast CT scanner.

RESULTS

The AGD for 80-kVp breast CT was comparable to that for two-view mammography of 5-cm breasts (compressed breast thickness). For thicker breasts, the breast CT dose was about one-third less than that for two-view mammography. The maximum dose at mammography assessed in 1-mm(3) voxels was far higher (20.0 mGy) than that at breast CT (5.4 mGy) for a typical 5-cm 50% glandular breast. CT images of an 8-cm cadaveric breast (AGD, 6.3 mGy) were subjectively superior to digital mammograms (AGD, 10.1 mGy) of the same specimen.

CONCLUSION

The potential of high signal-to-noise ratio images with low anatomic noise, which are obtainable at dose levels comparable to those for mammography, suggests that dedicated breast CT should be studied further for its potential in breast cancer screening and diagnosis.

Assessment of axillary lymph node involvement in small breast cancer: analysis of 893 cases

Axillary nodal involvement (ANI) remains an essential prognostic factor for breast cancer patients, as it implies the necessity of systemic adjuvant treatment and locoregional irradiation. Axillary dissection (AD) contributes to improved local disease control and may increase survival. However, AD results in a 10%-25% incidence of long-term side effects, particularly lymphedema. Moreover, many small primary lesions with low risk of ANI are now discovered by screening, and it is not clear whether AD should be used routinely in all such patients. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a selective procedure that allows selective staging of the axilla with few side effects. However, indications for SLNB are not precisely defined yet, so some patients may be understaged and the axillary relapse rate may increase. This study was conducted to help clinicians assess the risk of ANI and analyzed six clinical and histological parameters to optimally recognize patients who might benefit from SLNB, with a minimal risk of false-negative rate. We retrospectively analyzed the ANI risk among 893 women treated by conservative surgery and radiation for T0, T1, or T2 invasive tumours < 3 cm in size. All patients underwent AD with sampling of a minimum of seven lymph nodes. In each case, we assessed the clinical and pathological tumor size, histological subtype (including grading), tumor location, age at diagnosis, and breast size. The global ANI rate in the entire cohort was 25.3%. In multivariate analysis, three variables were significantly predictive of the ANI risk: tumor size (P < 0.0001), histological subtype (P = 0.0005), and breast size (P = 0.004). By combining these parameters, we were able to define three categories of women with low (< 20%), intermediate (21%-25%), and high (> 25%) ANI risk. We suggest that women with nonpalpable (T0), T1 grade 1/2, and T2 < 3 cm tumors of medullary, mucinous, tubular, or papillary histological subtype are the best candidates for SLNB. For other patients with a higher ANI risk tumor, AD may still remain the best procedure to obtain accurate staging and definitive local control.

Identification of women with early breast cancer by analysis of p43-positive lymphocytes

Regular screening mammographies and increasing knowledge of high-risk groups have resulted in an improvement in the rate of detection of smaller malignant lesions. However, uncertain minimal mammographic features frequently require further costly and often uncomfortable investigation, including repeat radiological controls or surgical procedures, before cancerous lesions can be identified. Placental isoferritin (p43), a protein with immunosuppressive effects, has been detected on the surface of lymphocytes taken from peripheral blood in patients with breast cancer. In this study we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the expression of p43-positive lymphocytes as a marker in early stage breast cancer and also investigated its expression on T-cell subpopulations. The presence of p43-positive lymphocytes was investigated using the monoclonal antibody CM-H-9 and flow cytometry in 76 women with controversial, non-palpable mammographic findings who were undergoing surgical biopsy. Patients with early breast cancer (n = 48) had significantly higher p43-positive cell values (median 3.83%, range 0.98-19.4) than patients with benign lumps (n = 28, median 1.43%, range 0.17-3.7) or controls (n = 22, median 1.3%, range 0.4-1.87) (P < 0.0001). At a cut-off level of 2% p43-positive cells a sensitivity of 91.7% and a specificity of 89.3% for detection of breast cancer could be reached. While the median ratio of total CD4+/CD8+ cells was 2.6, a ratio of 1.3 was found for the p43-positive subpopulation (P < 0.001), thus indicating a significant link between p43 and CD8+ cells. The determination of p43-positive lymphocytes in peripheral blood could serve as an additional diagnostic tool in patients with controversial mammographic findings and could also reduce the need for cost-intensive and often uncomfortable management of these patients.

Diagnostic testing following screening mammography in the elderly

BACKGROUND

To provide some sense of the general frequency and timing of diagnostic testing following screening mammography in the United States, we investigated the experience of women screened in the Medicare population.

METHODS

By use of Medicare's National Claims History System, we identified a cohort (n=23172) of women 65 years old or older screened during the period from January 1, 1995, through April 30, 1995, and tracked each woman over the subsequent 8 months for the performance of additional breast imaging and biopsy procedures. Using two claims-based definitions for newly detected breast cancer, we also estimated the positive predictive value of screening mammography.

RESULTS

For every 1000 women aged 65-69 years who underwent screening, 85 (95% confidence interval [CI]=79-91) had follow-up testing in the subsequent 8 months; 76 (95% CI=71-82) had additional breast imaging, and 23 (95% CI=20-26) had biopsy procedures. Corresponding numbers for women aged 70 years or more were similar. Some women underwent repeated examinations; 13% of those receiving diagnostic mammograms had more than one; 11% of those undergoing biopsy procedures had more than one. About half of the women who underwent a biopsy had the procedure more than 3 weeks after the imaging test upon which the decision to perform a biopsy was presumably made. The estimated positive predictive value of an abnormal screening mammogram (defined as a mammogram that engendered additional testing) was 0.08 (95% CI=0.06-0.10) for women aged 65-69 years and 0.14 (95% CI=0.12-0.16) for women aged 70 years or more.

CONCLUSION

Additional testing is a frequent consequence of screening mammography and may require a considerable period of time to come to closure. The need for additional testing, however, is weakly predictive of cancer.

Mammographic screening after the age of 65 years: early outcomes in the Nijmegen programme

We studied outcomes of mammographic screening in women older than 65 years. In 1975, breast cancer screening was started in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, for women aged 35-65 years. Since 1977, approximately 7700 older women have also been invited for biennial one-view mammography. This report is based on ten screening rounds from 1975 to 1994. The results of the subsequent screening rounds in the age groups 65-69 years, 70-74 years and 75 years and older were: participation rates 55%, 39% and 15%; screen-detected cancer rates 5.6%, 6.9% and 7.8%; interval cancer rates 2.0%, 1.8%, and 3.5%; and predictive values of referral 62%, 64% and 62% respectively. In all age groups, screen-detected patients had smaller tumours and a lower prevalence of axillary lymph node involvement than unscreened patients. Our conclusion is that, in women aged 65 years, and older, breast cancer can be detected at an earlier stage by mammographic screening.