Breast cancer in women 65-74 years old: earlier detection by mammographic screening

Radio-guided and clip-guided preoperative localization for malignant microcalcifications offer similar performances in breast-conserving surgery

Obtaining a tailored breast resection is challenging in microcalcifications detected on screening mammography, and an accurate localization is required. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of radio-guided localization (ROLL) versus ultrasound localization of a titanium clip with collagen (TCC) in terms of clear margins, re-intervention rates, excess of resected breast tissue, and operative times in pure malignant microcalcifications detected on screening mammography. Two hundred and twenty-one consecutive patients with malignant microcalcifications detected on screening mammography from a tertiary breast unit were reviewed: 177 patients were localized by TCC and 44 patients by stereotactic ROLL. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed, followed by a logistic regression model, to avoid selection bias. Adequacy of resection was expressed as the calculated resection ratio considering lesion size. No differences were found in clear margins with ROLL versus TCC (77.3% vs 81.8%, adjusted OR 2, P = 0.27). Re-operation rates were similar, being 11.3% with ROLL and 7.4% with TCC (P = 0.627). Mean resection volume was 46.2 cm³ with ROLL versus 54.2 cm³ with TCC (P = 0.222). Adjusted mean calculated resection ratio was 1.8 with ROLL and 2.1 with TCC (P = 0.38). Surgery time was longer with TCC compared to ROLL (69.6 vs 52.7 minutes, P < 0.0001). ROLL and TCC are equally effective to excise malignant microcalcifications with clear margins, providing similar re-intervention rates and resection volumes.

Long-term prognosis of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods

Introduction

Previous studies of breast cancer have shown that patients whose tumors are detected by mammography screening have a more favorable survival. Little is known, however, about the long-term prognostic impact of screen detection. The purpose of the current study was to compare breast cancer-specific long-term survival of patients whose tumors were detected in mammography screening compared with those whose tumors were detected by other methods.

Methods

Breast cancer patients diagnosed within five specified geographical areas in Finland in 1991 and 1992 were identified (N = 2,936). Detailed clinical, treatment and outcome data, as well as tissue samples, were collected. Women with in situ carcinoma, distant metastases at the time of primary diagnosis and women who were not treated surgically were excluded. The main analyses were performed after excluding patients with other malignancy or contralateral breast cancer, followed by sensitivity analyses with different exclusion criteria. Median follow-up time was 15.4 years. Univariate and multivariate analyses of breast cancer-specific survival were performed.

Results

Of patients included in the main analyses (n = 1,884), 22% (n = 408) of cancers were screen-detected and 78% (n = 1,476) were detected by other methods. Breast cancer-specific 15-year survival was 86% for patients with screen-detected cancer and 66% for patients diagnosed using other methods (P < 0.0001, HR = 2.91). Similar differences in survival were observed in women at screening age (50 to 69 years), as well as in clinically important subgroups, such as patients with small tumors (≤ 1 cm in diameter) and without nodal involvement (N0). Women with breast cancer diagnosed on the basis of screening mammography had a more favorable prognosis than those diagnosed outside screening programs, following adjustments according to patient age, tumor size, axillary lymph node status, histological grade and hormone receptor status. Significant differences in the risk of having future contralateral breast cancer according to method of detection were not observed.

Conclusions

Breast cancer detected by mammography screening is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer and is associated with a more favorable survival rate as well as in long-term follow-up.

Comparison of 1- and 2-year screening intervals for women undergoing screening mammography

We compared the long-term impact of 1- and 2-year screening mammography intervals using prognostic, screening, and outcome information for women aged 50–74 years obtained from the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia in two time periods, prior to 1997 (policy of annual mammography) and after 1997 (biennial mammography). Survival was estimated for both periods using a prognostic model and the expected rate of interval and screen-detected cancers. The likelihood of a screen-detected cancer with annual screening was 2.32 per thousand screens and with biennial screening was 3.32 per thousand screens. The prognostic profile of screen-detected cancers was better than that of interval cancers. Among both screen-detected and interval cancers, the prognostic profiles with annual and biennial screening were similar. The estimated breast cancer-specific survival rates for women undergoing annual and biennial screening mammography were 95.2 and 94.6% at 5 years, and 90.4 and 89.2% at 10 years, respectively. Annual compared to biennial mammography was associated with a 1.2% increase in the estimated 10-year breast cancer-specific survival for women aged 50–74 years, diagnosed with invasive breast cancer after screening programme attendance.

Primary care providers' concerns and recommendations regarding mammography screening for older women

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and mortality from breast cancer increase with age; however, mammography screening does not reflect this increased risk for older women. Lack of provider recommendation is a major barrier to screening.

METHODS

This is a descriptive study of mammography screening recommendations of community primary care providers in North Carolina (N = 96) participating in a National Cancer Institute funded research project. Providers self-reported screening recommendations for typical patients of different ages and issues and concerns that might influence the decision. Chart reviews compared actual practices with policies stated.

RESULTS

Of the providers, 51% recommended biannual, 45% annual for women ages 50 through 74; 4% recommended biannual, 80% annual, 5% did not recommend screening, and 10% had no general policy for women over 75. Cost, inconsistent guidelines, comorbidity, functional status, value of mammography, and patient resistance influenced screening recommendations. Chart review showed even lower rates of recommendation than self-reported figures.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of screening mammography has increased over the past decade, older women are one of the last subgroups to derive benefit from this screening test. Our survey revealed lower rates for mammography referral in older women. The primary care provider appears to be essential to increasing participation for these older women in breast cancer screening.

Reason for late-stage breast cancer: absence of screening or detection, or breakdown in follow-up?

BACKGROUND

Mammography screening increases the detection of early-stage breast cancers. Therefore, implementing screening should reduce the percentage of women who are diagnosed with late-stage disease. However, despite high national mammography screening rates, late-stage breast cancers still occur, possibly because of failures in screening implementation.

METHODS

Using data from seven health care plans that included 1.5 million women aged 50 years or older, we conducted retrospective reviews of chart and automated data for 3 years before 1995-1999 diagnoses of late-stage (metastatic and/or tumor size > or =3 cm; case subjects, n = 1347) and early-stage breast cancers (control subjects, n = 1347). We categorized the earliest screening mammogram during the period 13-36 months before diagnosis as none (absence of screening), negative (absence of detection), or positive (potential breakdown in follow-up). We compared the proportion of case and control subjects in each category of screening implementation and estimated the likelihood (odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of late-stage breast cancer. We also evaluated demographic characteristics associated with absence of screening in women with late-stage disease. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Absence of screening, absence of detection, and potential breakdown in follow-up were distributed differently among case (52.1%, 39.5%, and 8.4%, respectively) and control subjects (34.4%, 56.9%, and 8.8%, respectively) (P = .03). Among all women, the odds of having late-stage cancer were higher among women with an absence of screening (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.84 to 2.56; P<.001). Among case patients, women were more likely to be in the absence-of-screening group if they were aged 75 years or older (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 2.10 to 3.65), unmarried (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.41 to 2.24), or without a family history of breast cancer (OR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.45 to 2.34). A higher proportion of women from census blocks with less education (58.5% versus 49.4%; P = .003) or lower median annual income (54.4% versus 42.9%; P = .004) were in the absence-of-screening category compared with the proportion for the other two categories combined.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce late-stage breast cancer occurrence, reaching unscreened women, including elderly, unmarried, low-income, and less educated women, should be made a top priority for screening implementation.

Considerations of osteoporosis prevention in an aging society

As the population ages, preventive gerontology has been advocated to promote good personal health practices for a healthier longevity. While detection and management of high blood pressure, elevated serum glycemic and cholesterol levels, have been routine in the care of older persons, approaches to osteoporosis identification and management are more complex and less widely practiced. This article reviews aspects of osteoporosis detection and intervention in this patient population, with recommendations for meeting the needs of 'bone health' in an aging society.

Breast cancer screening

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the United States; however, recent data demonstrates a decline in the mortality rate, which may be attributed to early detection from screening programs combined with effective therapies for early stage disease. As a result of the prevalence of breast cancer and its association with highly emotional issues, screening recommendations have aroused debate in the scientific, public, and legislative domains. A general consensus supports breast cancer screening among women between the ages of 50 and 70; however, much controversy exists regarding screening for women age 40 to 49 or above age 70. This article explores the issues involved in determining breast cancer screening recommendations among asymptomatic women with average risk in the United States.