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

A Novel Approach for Conducting a Catchment Area Analysis of Breast Cancer by Age and Stage for a Community Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently issued an updated draft recommendation statement to initiate breast cancer screening at age 40, reflecting well-documented disparities in breast cancer-related mortality that disproportionately impact younger Black women. This study applied a novel approach to identify hotspots of breast cancer diagnosed before age 50 and/or at an advanced stage to improve breast cancer detection within these communities.

METHODS

Cancer registry data for 3,497 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed or treated between 2012 and 2020 at the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute (HFGCCRI) and who resided in the HFGCCRI catchment area, defined as New Castle County, Delaware, were geocoded and analyzed with spatial intensity. Standardized incidence ratios stratified by age and race were calculated for each hotspot.

RESULTS

Four hotspots were identified, two for breast cancer diagnosed before age 50, one for advanced breast cancer, and one for advanced breast cancer diagnosed before age 50. Younger Black women were overrepresented in these hotspots relative to the full-catchment area.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel use of spatial methods to analyze a community cancer center catchment area identified geographic areas with higher rates of breast cancer with poor prognostic factors and evidence that these areas made an outsized contribution to racial disparities in breast cancer.

IMPACT

Identifying and prioritizing hotspot breast cancer communities for community outreach and engagement activities designed to improve breast cancer detection have the potential to reduce the overall burden of breast cancer and narrow racial disparities in breast cancer.

Understanding mechanisms of racial disparities in breast cancer: an assessment of screening and regular care in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study

PURPOSE

Screening history influences stage at detection, but regular preventive care may also influence breast tumor diagnostic characteristics. Few studies have evaluated healthcare utilization (both screening and primary care) in racially diverse screening-eligible populations.

METHODS

This analysis included 2,058 women age 45-74 (49% Black) from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based cohort of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2008 and 2013. Screening history (threshold 0.5 mammograms per year) and pre-diagnostic healthcare utilization (i.e. regular care, based on responses to "During the past ten years, who did you usually see when you were sick or needed advice about your health?") were assessed as binary exposures. The relationship between healthcare utilization and tumor characteristics were evaluated overall and race-stratified.

RESULTS

Among those lacking screening, Black participants had larger tumors (5 + cm) (frequency 19.6% vs 11.5%, relative frequency difference (RFD) = 8.1%, 95% CI 2.8-13.5), but race differences were attenuated among screening-adherent participants (10.2% vs 7.0%, RFD = 3.2%, 0.2-6.2). Similar trends were observed for tumor stage and mode of detection (mammogram vs lump). Among all participants, those lacking both screening and regular care had larger tumors (21% vs 8%, RR = 2.51, 1.76-3.56) and advanced (3B +) stage (19% vs 6%, RR = 3.15, 2.15-4.63) compared to the referent category (screening-adherent and regular care). Under-use of regular care and screening was more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of North Carolina.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to regular care is an important safeguard for earlier detection. Our data suggest that health equity interventions should prioritize both primary care and screening.

Trends in breast, colon, pancreatic, and uterine cancers in women during the COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in primary care and cancer screening visits, which may delay detection of some cancers. The impact on incidence has not been fully quantified. We examined change in cancer incidence to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic may have altered the characteristics of cancers diagnosed among women.

METHODS

This study included female patients aged ≥18 years and diagnosed with breast (n = 9489), colon (n = 958), pancreatic (n = 669), or uterine (n = 1991) cancer at three hospitals in North Carolina. Using interrupted time series, we compared incidence of cancers diagnosed between March 2020 and November 2020 (during pandemic) with cancers diagnosed between January 2016 and February 2020 (pre-pandemic).

RESULTS

During the pandemic, incidence of breast and uterine cancers was significantly lower than expected compared to pre-pandemic (breast-18%, p = 0.03; uterine -20%, p = 0.05). Proportions of advanced pathologic stage and hormone receptor-negative breast cancers, and advanced clinical stage and large size uterine cancers were more prevalent during the pandemic. No significant changes in incidence were detected for pancreatic (-20%, p = 0.08) or colon (+14%, p = 0.30) cancers.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In women, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of breast and uterine cancers, but not colon or pancreatic cancers. A change in the proportion of poor prognosis breast and uterine cancers suggests that some cancers that otherwise would have been diagnosed at an earlier stage will be detected in later years. Continued analysis of long-term trends is needed to understand the full impact of the pandemic on cancer incidence and outcomes.

Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density

BACKGROUND

Examining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts.

METHODS

We evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score-matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy.

RESULTS

Screen-detected early stage cancer rates were statistically higher for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (9.3 vs 2.9; difference = 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5 to 10.3) and dense (7.5 vs 3.5; difference = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.7) breasts and for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for dense breasts (19.2 vs 7.5; difference = 11.7, 95% CI = 4.6 to 18.8). Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (0.8 vs 0.5; difference = 0.4, 95% CI = -0.8 to 1.6) or dense breasts (1.5 vs 1.4; difference = 0.0, 95% CI = -1.2 to 1.3), nor were advanced cancer rates. Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for nondense (2.6 vs 0.8; difference = 1.8 (95% CI = -2.0 to 5.5) or dense breasts (0.6 vs 1.5; difference = -0.9, 95% CI = -2.5 to 0.7), nor were advanced cancer rates. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendation rates were statistically higher for MRI groups than mammography alone.

CONCLUSION

MRI screening with or without mammography increased rates of screen-detected early stage cancer and false-positives for women with dense breasts without a concomitant decrease in advanced or interval cancers.

Population Attributable Risk of Advanced-Stage Breast Cancer by Race and Ethnicity

Importance

Advanced-stage breast cancer rates vary by race and ethnicity, with Black women having a 2-fold higher rate than White women among regular screeners. Clinical risk factors that explain a large proportion of advanced breast cancers by race and ethnicity are unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the population attributable risk proportions (PARPs) for advanced-stage breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher) associated with clinical risk factors among routinely screened premenopausal and postmenopausal women by race and ethnicity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used data collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium community-based breast imaging facilities from January 2005 to June 2018. Participants were women aged 40 to 74 years undergoing 3 331 740 annual (prior screening within 11-18 months) or biennial (prior screening within 19-30 months) screening mammograms associated with 1815 advanced breast cancers diagnosed within 2 years of screening examinations. Data analysis was performed from September 2022 to August 2023.

Exposures

Heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, first-degree family history of breast cancer, overweight/obesity (body mass index >25.0), history of benign breast biopsy, and screening interval (biennial vs annual) stratified by menopausal status and race and ethnicity (Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, White, other/multiracial).

Main Outcomes and Measures

PARPs for advanced breast cancer.

Results

Among 904 615 women, median (IQR) age was 57 (50-64) years. Of the 3 331 740 annual or biennial screening mammograms, 10.8% were for Asian or Pacific Islander women; 9.5% were for Black women; 5.3% were for Hispanic/Latinx women; 72.0% were for White women; and 2.0% were for women of other races and ethnicities, including those who were Alaska Native, American Indian, 2 or more reported races, or other. Body mass index PARPs were larger for postmenopausal vs premenopausal women (30% vs 22%) and highest for postmenopausal Black (38.6%; 95% CI, 32.0%-44.8%) and Hispanic/Latinx women (31.8%; 95% CI, 25.3%-38.0%) and premenopausal Black women (30.3%; 95% CI, 17.7%-42.0%), with overall prevalence of having overweight/obesity highest in premenopausal Black (84.4%) and postmenopausal Black (85.1%) and Hispanic/Latinx women (72.4%). Breast density PARPs were larger for premenopausal vs postmenopausal women (37% vs 24%, respectively) and highest among premenopausal Asian or Pacific Islander (46.6%; 95% CI, 37.9%-54.4%) and White women (39.8%; 95% CI, 31.7%-47.3%) whose prevalence of dense breasts was high (62%-79%). For premenopausal and postmenopausal women, PARPs were small for family history of breast cancer (5%-8%), history of breast biopsy (7%-12%), and screening interval (2.1%-2.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study among routinely screened women, the proportion of advanced breast cancers attributed to biennial vs annual screening was small. To reduce the number of advanced breast cancer diagnoses, primary prevention should focus on interventions that shift patients with overweight and obesity to normal weight.

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights

There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump

BACKGROUND

We evaluated diagnostic mammography among women with a breast lump to determine whether performance varied across racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

This study included 51,014 diagnostic mammograms performed between 2005 and 2018 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium among Asian/Pacific Islander (12%), Black (7%), Hispanic/Latina (6%), and White (75%) women reporting a lump. Breast cancers occurring within 1 year were ascertained from cancer registry linkages. Multivariable regression was used to adjust performance statistic comparisons for breast cancer risk factors, mammogram modality, demographics, additional imaging, and imaging facility.

RESULTS

Cancer detection rates were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander [per 1,000 exams, 84.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.0-98.2)] and Black women [81.4 (95% CI: 69.4-95.2)] and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [42.9 (95% CI: 34.2-53.6)]. Positive predictive values (PPV) were higher among Black [37.0% (95% CI: 31.2-43.3)] and White [37.0% (95% CI: 30.0-44.6)] women and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [22.0% (95% CI: 17.2-27.7)]. False-positive results were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 exams, 183.9 (95% CI: 126.7-259.2)] and lowest among White women [112.4 (95% CI: 86.1-145.5)]. After adjustment, false-positive and cancer detection rates remained higher for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women (vs. Hispanic/Latina and White). Adjusted PPV was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander women.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women with a lump, Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women were more likely to have cancer detected and more likely to receive a false-positive result compared with White and Hispanic/Latina women.

IMPACT

Strategies for optimizing diagnostic mammography among women with a lump may vary by racial/ethnic group, but additional factors that influence performance differences need to be identified. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

Impact of Breast Cancer Screening on 10-Year Net Survival in Canadian Women Age 40-49 Years

PURPOSE

In Canada, some provincial/territorial mammography screening programs include women age 40-49 years, whereas others do not. This study examines the impact of this dichotomy on the 10-year breast cancer (BC) net survival (NS) among women age 40-49 years and 50-59 years at diagnosis.

METHODS

Using the Canadian Cancer Registry data record linked to death information, we evaluated the cohort of Canadian women age 40-49 years and 50-59 years diagnosed with BC from 2002 to 2007. We compared 10-year NS estimates in the jurisdictions with organized screening programs that included women age 40-49 years, designated as screeners (Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island), with comparator programs that did not (Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador).

RESULTS

BC was the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women age 40-49 years diagnosed with BC (90.7% of deaths). Among these women, the 10-year NS for screeners (84.8%; 95% CI, 83.8 to 85.8) was 1.9 percentage points (pp) higher than that for comparators (82.9%; 95% CI, 82.3 to 83.5; P = .001). The difference in favor of screeners was significant among women age 45-49 years (2.6 pp; P = .001) but not among women age 40-44 years (0.9 pp; P = .328). Similarly, the incidence-based BC mortality rate was significantly lower in screener jurisdictions among women age 40-49 years and 45-49 years, but not for 40-44 years. Provincial/territorial NS increased significantly with higher mammography screening participation (P = .003). The BC incidence rate was virtually identical in screener and comparator jurisdictions among women age 40-49 years (P = .976) but was significantly higher for comparators among women age 50-59 years (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher BC 10-year NS in women age 40-49 years, but not an increased rate of BC diagnosis. These results may inform screening guidelines for women age 40-49 years.

Breast cancer risk characteristics of women undergoing whole-breast ultrasound screening versus mammography alone

BACKGROUND

There are no consensus guidelines for supplemental breast cancer screening with whole-breast ultrasound. However, criteria for women at high risk of mammography screening failures (interval invasive cancer or advanced cancer) have been identified. Mammography screening failure risk was evaluated among women undergoing supplemental ultrasound screening in clinical practice compared with women undergoing mammography alone.

METHODS

A total of 38,166 screening ultrasounds and 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening were identified during 2014-2020 within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Risk of interval invasive cancer and advanced cancer were determined using BCSC prediction models. High interval invasive breast cancer risk was defined as heterogeneously dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥2.5% or extremely dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥1.67%. Intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was defined as BCSC 6-year advanced breast cancer risk ≥0.38%.

RESULTS

A total of 95.3% of 38,166 ultrasounds were among women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, compared with 41.8% of 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening (p < .0001). Among women with dense breasts, high interval invasive breast cancer risk was prevalent in 23.7% of screening ultrasounds compared with 18.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30-1.39); intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was prevalent in 32.0% of screening ultrasounds versus 30.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental screening (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound screening was highly targeted to women with dense breasts, but only a modest proportion were at high mammography screening failure risk. A clinically significant proportion of women undergoing mammography screening alone were at high mammography screening failure risk.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence System and Volumetric Density on Risk Prediction of Interval, Screen-Detected, and Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms improve breast cancer detection on mammography, but their contribution to long-term risk prediction for advanced and interval cancers is unknown.

METHODS

We identified 2,412 women with invasive breast cancer and 4,995 controls matched on age, race, and date of mammogram, from two US mammography cohorts, who had two-dimensional full-field digital mammograms performed 2-5.5 years before cancer diagnosis. We assessed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density, an AI malignancy score (1-10), and volumetric density measures. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, adjusted for age and BMI, and C-statistics (AUC) to describe the association of AI score with invasive cancer and its contribution to models with breast density measures. Likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) and bootstrapping methods were used to compare model performance.

RESULTS

On mammograms between 2-5.5 years prior to cancer, a one unit increase in AI score was associated with 20% greater odds of invasive breast cancer (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.22; AUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.64) and was similarly predictive of interval (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.27; AUC, 0.63) and advanced cancers (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.31; AUC, 0.64) and in dense (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.22; AUC, 0.66) breasts. AI score improved prediction of all cancer types in models with density measures (PLRT values < .001); discrimination improved for advanced cancer (ie, AUC for dense volume increased from 0.624 to 0.679, Δ AUC 0.065, P = .01) but did not reach statistical significance for interval cancer.

CONCLUSION

AI imaging algorithms coupled with breast density independently contribute to long-term risk prediction of invasive breast cancers, in particular, advanced cancer.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Background Prior cross-sectional studies have observed that breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM). Purpose To evaluate breast cancer screening outcomes with DBT versus DM on successive screening rounds. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from 58 breast imaging facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were collected. Analysis included women aged 40-79 years undergoing DBT or DM screening from 2011 to 2020. Absolute differences in screening outcomes by modality and screening round were estimated during the study period by using generalized estimating equations with marginal standardization to adjust for differences in women's risk characteristics across modality and round. Results A total of 523 485 DBT examinations (mean age of women, 58.7 years ± 9.7 [SD]) and 1 008 123 DM examinations (mean age, 58.4 years ± 9.8) among 504 863 women were evaluated. DBT and DM recall rates decreased with successive screening round, but absolute recall rates in each round were significantly lower with DBT versus DM (round 1 difference, -3.3% [95% CI: -4.6, -2.1] [P < .001]; round 2 difference, -1.8% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.7] [P = .003]; round 3 or above difference, -1.2% [95% CI: -2.4, -0.1] [P = .03]). DBT had significantly higher cancer detection (difference, 0.6 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 0.2, 1.1]; P = .009) compared with DM only for round 3 and above. There were no significant differences in interval cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.24, 0.30] [P = .96]; round 2 or above difference, 0.04 [95% CI: -0.19, 0.31] [P = .76]) or total advanced cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.15, 0.19] [P = .94]; round 2 or above difference, -0.06 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.11] [P = .43]). Conclusion DBT had lower recall rates and could help detect more cancers than DM across three screening rounds, with no difference in interval or advanced cancer rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

Breast cancer genetics and risk assessment: an overview for the clinician

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally with enormous associated morbidity, mortality and economic impact. Prevention of breast cancer is a global public health imperative. To date, most of our global efforts have been directed at expanding population breast cancer screening programs for early cancer detection and not at breast cancer prevention efforts. It is imperative that we change the paradigm. As with other diseases, prevention of breast cancer starts with identification of individuals at high risk, and for breast cancer this requires improved identification of individuals who carry a hereditary cancer mutation associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer, and identification of others who are at high risk due to non-genetic, established modifiable and non-modifiable factors. This article will review basic breast cancer genetics and the most common hereditary breast cancer mutations associated with increased risk. We will also discuss the other non-genetic modifiable and non-modifiable breast cancer risk factors, available risk assessment models and an approach to incorporating screening for genetic mutation carriers and identifying high-risk women in clinical practice. A discussion of guidelines for enhanced screening, chemoprevention and surgical management of high-risk women is beyond the scope of this review.

Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in Resource-Limited Settings: Current Practice and Future Directions

Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer among women globally. Cancer screening can reduce mortality and improve women’s health. In developed countries, mammography (MAM) has been primarily utilized for population-based BC screening for several decades. However, it is usually unavailable in low-resource settings due to the lack of equipment, personnel, and time necessary to conduct and interpret the examinations. Ultrasound (US) with high detection sensitivity for women of younger ages and with dense breasts has become a supplement to MAM for breast examination. Some guidelines suggest using US as the primary screening tool in certain settings where MAM is unavailable and infeasible, but global recommendations have not yet reached a unanimous consensus. With the development of smart devices and artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging, clinical applications and preclinical studies have shown the potential of US combined with AI in BC screening. Nevertheless, there are few comprehensive reviews focused on the role of US in screening BC in underserved conditions, especially in technological, economical, and global perspectives. This work presents the benefits, limitations, advances, and future directions of BC screening with technology-assisted and resource-appropriate strategies, which may be helpful to implement screening initiatives in resource-limited countries.

Awareness of Palestinian Women About Breast Cancer Risk Factors: A National Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess awareness of Palestinian women about breast cancer (BC) age-related and lifetime risks and its risk factors and to identify factors associated with good awareness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult women were recruited from government hospitals, primary health care centers, and public spaces in 11 governorates in Palestine. Recognition of 14 BC risk factors was assessed using a translated-into-Arabic version of the validated BC awareness measure. The level of BC risk factor awareness was determined on the basis of the number of risk factors recognized: poor (0-4), fair (5-9), and good (10-14).

RESULTS

Of 6,269 potential participants approached, 5,434 agreed and completed the questionnaire (response rate = 86.7%). A total of 5,257 questionnaires were included: 2,706 from the West Bank and Jerusalem and 2,551 from the Gaza Strip. Only 173 participants (3.3%) recognized the age-related risk of BC. More than one quarter (n = 1,465; 27.9%) recognized the lifetime risk of BC. The most recognized modifiable risk factor was not breastfeeding (n = 4,937; 93.9%), whereas the least recognized was having children later on in life or not at all (n = 1,755; 33.4%). The most recognized nonmodifiable risk factor was radiation exposure (n = 4,579; 87.1%), whereas the least recognized was starting the periods at an early age (n = 1,030; 19.6%). In total, 2,024 participants (38.4%) demonstrated good BC risk factor awareness. Participants from the Gaza Strip had a higher likelihood than participants from the West Bank and Jerusalem to have good awareness (42.0% v 35.2%). Age ≥ 40 years, postsecondary education, and visiting hospitals and primary health care centers were all associated with an increase in the likelihood of having good BC risk factor awareness.

CONCLUSION

The awareness of BC risk factors was suboptimal. These findings highlight the need for implementing health education programs combined with consistent use of ad hoc opportunities to raise awareness by health care providers.

Mammographic and Ultrasonographic Imaging Analysis for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Evaluation: Volume Reduction Indexes That Correlate With Pathological Complete Response

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate volume reduction in digital mammography (DM) and ultrasound (US) for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) evaluation, with breast cancer-specific survival and pathological complete response (pCR) associations.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational cohort study analyzing recorded images in 122 selected subjects out of which 569 patients presented with advanced breast cancers. Spearman's correlation and generalized estimating equations (GEE) compared volume reduction on DM and US between pCR and non-pCR after NAC with post-surgical anatomopathology. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier curves analyzed associations between cancer-specific survival, pCR, and volume reductions.

RESULTS

A total of 34.4% (N=42) obtained pCR and 65.6% (N=80) did not. Minimum percentage indexes needed to correlate with pCR over time were, at least, 28.9% for DM (p=0.006) and 10.36% for US (p=0.046), with high specificity (US=98%, DM=93%) but low sensitivity (US=7%, DM=18%). Positive predictive values were 82% (DM) and 86% (US) and negative predictive values were 37% (DM) and 36% (US). Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated associations of breast cancer-specific survival with pCR (Cox regression coefficient {B}=0.209, CI 95%=0.048-0.914, p=0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

At least 28.9% of volume reduction on DM and 10.36% of volume reduction on US are correlated with pCR. Furthermore, pCR was associated with breast cancer-specific survival after NAC in volumetric morphological imaging analysis.

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores are associated with short-term risk of poor prognosis breast cancer

PURPOSE

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast cancer may help guide screening decisions. However, few studies have examined whether PRS are associated with risk of short-term or poor prognosis breast cancers. The study purpose was to evaluate the association of the 313 SNP breast cancer PRS with 2-year risk of poor prognosis breast cancer.

METHODS

We evaluated the association of breast cancer PRS with breast cancer overall, ER + and ER- breast cancer, and poor prognosis breast cancer diagnosed within 2 years of a negative mammogram among a cohort of 3657 women using logistic regression adjusted for age, breast density, race/ethnicity, year of screening, and genetic ancestry principal components. Breast cancers were considered poor prognosis if they were metastatic, positive lymph nodes, ER/PR + HER2- and > 2 cm, ER/PR/HER2-, or HER2 + and > 1 cm.

RESULTS

Of the 308 breast cancers, 137 (44%) were poor prognosis. The overall breast cancer PRS was significantly associated with breast cancer diagnosis within 2 years (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23-1.57, p < 0.001). The breast cancer PRS was also associated specifically with diagnosis of poor prognosis disease (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.49, p = 0.018), but was more strongly associated with good prognosis cancer (OR 1.52 95% CI 1.29-1.80 p = 3.60 × 10^-7) The ER + PRS was significantly associated with ER/PR + breast cancer (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.24-1.61, p < 0.001) and the ER- PRS was significantly associated with ER- breast cancer (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.08-2.02, p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer PRS was independently and significantly associated with diagnosis of both breast cancer overall and poor prognosis breast cancer within 2 years of a negative mammogram, suggesting PRS may help guide decisions about screening intervals and supplemental screening.

Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives

Simple Summary

Nearly all breast cancer patients survive for more than five years when the tumor is found early and in the localized stage. Regular clinical breast examinations, mammograms, and monthly self-exams of the breasts all contribute to early detection. However, late-stage breast cancers are common in many Asian countries. Low-income countries suffer from a lack of resources for breast cancer screening. High-income countries, on the other hand, are not benefiting fully from national breast screening programs due to an underutilization of the preventive healthcare services available. Existing reviews on Asian breast cancers are heavily focused on risk factors. The question of whether we should adopt or adapt the knowledge generated from non-Asian breast cancers would benefit from an extension into screening guidelines. In addition, several Asian countries are piloting studies that move away from the age-based screening paradigm.

Abstract

Close to half (45.4%) of the 2.3 million breast cancers (BC) diagnosed in 2020 were from Asia. While the burden of breast cancer has been examined at the level of broad geographic regions, literature on more in-depth coverage of the individual countries and subregions of the Asian continent is lacking. This narrative review examines the breast cancer burden in 47 Asian countries. Breast cancer screening guidelines and risk-based screening initiatives are discussed.

Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer

Importance

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk.

Objective

To evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries.

Exposures

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting.

Results

Among 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.

Are advancements in screening technology contributing to breast cancer over-diagnosis?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advancements in breast screening technology have increased the sensitivity of screening and thereby increased the detection rates of nonlethal cancers. Thus, improvements in breast screening technology may contribute to 'over-diagnosis', which refers to detection of cancers that pose no threat to life and that, in the absence of screening, might never have been detected. The purpose of this review is to draw attention to risks of over-diagnosis and provide a rationale for evaluating screening clinical breast examination (CBE) as an alternative to modern technology-based (mammography) screening.

RECENT FINDINGS

Novel screening technologies have been adopted largely on the basis of their abilities to increase tumor-detection rates. However, as breast cancer treatments have improved, the mortality benefits of screening have declined. Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that, in the modern era of effective adjuvant systemic therapies, the mortality benefit of screening CBE may now be comparable to that of modern screening mammography, but screening CBE carries less risk of over-diagnosis.

SUMMARY

A randomized trial comparing modern mammography screening versus screening CBE is warranted. If confirmed that the mortality benefits of the two screening strategies are now comparable, then screening CBE might be considered a reasonable alternative to mammography screening.

Risk factors for an advanced breast cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram

BACKGROUND

Identifying women at risk for advanced interval cancers would allow better targeting of mammography and supplemental screening. The authors assessed risk factors for advanced breast cancer within 2 years of a negative mammogram.

METHODS

The authors included 293,520 negative mammograms performed from 2006 to 2015 among 74,736 women. Breast cancers were defined as advanced if they were >2 cm, were >1 cm and triple-negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, had positive lymph nodes, or were metastatic. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate associations of age, breast density, menopause, mammogram type, prior breast biopsy, body mass index (BMI), and a family history of breast cancer with a cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram. Models were stratified by year since a negative mammogram.

RESULTS

Among 1345 breast cancers, 357 were advanced (26.5%), and 988 (73.5%) were at an early stage. Breast density, prior biopsy, and family history were associated with an increased risk of both advanced and early-stage cancers. Overweight and obese women had a 40% higher risk of early-stage cancer only in year 2 (overweight hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.67; P < .001; obese HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70; P < .001). Obese women had a 90% increased risk of advanced cancer in year 1 (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.14-3.18; P = .014), and both overweight and obese women had a 40% or greater increased risk in year 2 (overweight HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.07; P = .005; obese HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.00-2.01; P = .051).

CONCLUSIONS

A higher BMI was associated with an advanced breast cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram. These results have important implications for risk assessment, screening intervals, and use of supplemental screening.