Long-term survival of screen-detected synchronous and metachronous bilateral non-palpable breast cancer among Chinese women: a hospital-based study (2003-2017)

Purpose

Screen-detected unilateral non-palpable breast cancer (NPBC) shows favorable prognosis, whereas bilateral breast cancer (BBC), especially synchronous BBC (SBBC) manifests worse survival than unilateral breast cancer (BC). It remains unclear whether screen-detected bilateral NPBC has compromised survival and requires intensified treatment or favorable prognosis and needs de-escalating therapy.

Methods

From 2003 to 2017, 1,075 consecutive NPBC patients were retrospectively reviewed. There were 988 patients with unilateral NPBC (UniNPBC), and 87 patients with ipsilateral NPBC + any contralateral BC [(N + AnyContra) PBC], including 32 patients with bilateral NPBC (BiNPBC) and 55 patients with ipsilateral NPBC + contralateral palpable cancer [(N + Contra) PBC]. Median follow-up time was 91 (48–227) months. Clinicopathological characteristics were compared between UniNPBC and BBC, whereas relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) among BBC subgroups. RFS and OS factors of BBC were identified.

Results

Compared to UniNPBC, patients with screen-detected bilateral BC had more invasive (85.1%, 74.8%), ER negative (26.4%, 17.1%), PR negative (36.8%, 23.5%), triple-negative (21.6%, 8.5%) BC as well as less breast conserving surgery (17.2%, 32.4%), radiotherapy (13.8%, 32.0%) and endocrine therapy (71.3%, 83.9%). 10 year RFS and OS rates of (N + AnyContra) PBC (72.8%, 81.5%), (N + Contra) PBC (60.6%, 73.9%), and synchronous (N + Contra) PBC (58.1%, 70.1%) were significantly compromised compared to UniNPBC (91.0%, 97.2%). RFS factors of BBC included pN3 (p = 0.048), lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.008) and existence of contralateral palpable interval BC (p = 0.008), while the OS relevant factor was pN3 (p = 0.018).

Conclusion

Screen-detected bilateral NPBC including SynBiNPBC and MetaBiNPBC showed good prognosis as UniNPBC so that the therapy of BiNPBC could be de-escalated and optimized according to UniNPBC. Contrarily, screen-detected ipsilateral NPBC with contralateral palpable BC [(N + Contra) PBC] manifested unfavorable survival worse than UniNPBC and synchronous (N + Contra) PBC had the worst survival among all subgroups, implying that these were actually bilateral interval BC and required intensified treatment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-022-06747-5.

Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds

BACKGROUND

Case-control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers.

METHOD

We conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (ΔBIC).

RESULTS

For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA = 2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85-2.92); all ΔBIC > 14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all ΔBIC > 6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.07).

CONCLUSION

The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of interval breast cancer risk, irrespective of BMI. Therefore, there are different features of mammographic images that give clinically important information about different outcomes.

Comparison of pathological characteristics between self-detected and screen-detected invasive breast cancers in Chinese women: a retrospective study

Background

In China, there is insufficient evidence to support that screening programs can detect breast cancer earlier and improve outcomes compared with patient self-reporting. Therefore, we compared the pathological characteristics at diagnosis between self-detected and screen-detected cases of invasive breast cancer at our institution and determined whether these characteristics were different after the program's introduction (vs. prior to).

Methods

Three databases were selected (breast cancer diagnosed in 1995-2000, 2010, and 2015), which provided a total of 3,014 female patients with invasive breast cancer. The cases were divided into self-detected and screen-detected groups. The pathological characteristics were compared between the two groups and multiple imputation and complete randomized imputation were used to deal with missing data.

Results

Compared with patient self-reporting, screening was associated with the following factors: a higher percentage of stage T1 tumors (75.0% vs 17.1%, P = 0.109 in 1995-2000; 66.7% vs 40.4%, P < 0.001 in 2010; 67.8% vs 35.7%, P < 0.001 in 2015); a higher percentage of tumors with stage N0 lymph node status (67.3% vs. 48.4%, P = 0.007 in 2010); and a higher percentage of histologic grade I tumors (22.9% vs 13.9%, P = 0.017 in 2010).

Conclusion

Screen-detected breast cancer was associated with a greater number of favorable pathological characteristics. However, although screening had a beneficial role in early detection in China, we found fewer patients were detected by screening in this study compared with those in Western and Asian developed countries.

Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20-24years in England a cause for concern?

The rates of cervical cancer (CxCa) in England among women aged 20-24yrs increased from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 (p=0.0006). There was concern that the sudden increase was linked to the withdrawal of cervical screening in women aged 20-24 (a policy that affected women born since 1984). We analyse granular data on age and FIGO stage at diagnosis using a generalised linear model to see whether the unprecedented increase in CxCa in young women in 2014 was linked to the change in 2012 to the age at which the first invitation to screening was sent (from 25.0 to 24.5). Annual rates of CxCa per 100,000 women aged 20.0-24.5yrs decreased gradually over time, whereas at age 24.5-25.0yrs they increased from an average of 16 pre-2013 to 49 in 2015. An increase of 20.3 per 100,000 women aged 24.5-25.0yrs (95% CI: 15.2-25.4) was associated with inviting women for screening at age 24.5yrs instead of at age 25.0. At age 25.0-25.5yrs, rates decreased by 23.7 per 100,000 after women were invited at age 24.5yrs (p<0.001). All these changes were limited to stage I CxCa. There was a dramatic increase in diagnoses at age 25yrs in 2009-2011 associated with changing the age at first invitation from 20yrs to 25yrs. No changes were observed at age 26.0-27.0yrs. The increase in CxCa aged 20-24 is attributable to an increase in the proportion of women first screened aged 24.5yrs. The increase was limited to stage I CxCa. There is no evidence of a lack of screening leading to increasing rates.

Attending the breast screening programme after breast cancer treatment: a population-based study

INTRODUCTION

In the Netherlands, breast cancer patients are treated and followed at least 5 years after diagnosis. Furthermore, all women aged 50-74 are invited biennially for mammography by the nationwide screening programme. The relation between the outpatient follow-up (follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic for 5 years after treatment) and the screening programme is not well established and attending the screening programme as well as outpatient follow-up is considered undesirable. This study evaluates potential factors influencing women to attend the screening programme during their outpatient follow-up (overlap) and the (re-)attendance to the screening programme after 5 years of outpatient follow-up.

METHODS

Data of breast cancer patients aged 50-74 years, treated for primary breast cancer between 1996 and 2007 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and linked to the National Breast Cancer Screening Programme in the Northern region. Cox regression analyses were used to study women (re-)attending the screening programme over time, possible overlap with the outpatient follow-up and factors influencing this.

RESULTS

In total 11227 breast cancer patients were included, of whom 19% attended the screening programme after breast cancer treatment, 4.4% within 5 years and 15.4% after more than 5 years. Factors that independently influenced attendance within 5 years as well as more than 5 years after treatment were: interval tumours (HR 0.77; 95%CI 0.61-0.97 and HR 0.69; 95%CI 0.53-0.88, ref: screen-detected tumours), receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.65; 95%CI 0.47-0.90 and HR 0.66; 95%CI 0.47-0.93; ref: none) and diagnosis of in situ tumours (HR 1.67; 95%CI 1.25-2.23 and HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.05-1.85; ref: stage I tumours). Non-screen related tumours (HR 0.41; 95%CI 0.29-0.58) and recent diagnosis (HR 0.89 per year; 95%CI 0.86-0.92) were only associated with attendance within 5 years after treatment.

CONCLUSION

The interrelation between outpatient follow-up and screening should be improved to avoid overlap and low attendance to the screening programme after outpatient follow-up. Breast cancer patients should be informed that attending the screening programme during the outpatient follow-up is not necessary.