Mammographic density and histopathologic characteristics of screen-detected tumors in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program

Background High mammographic density might mask breast tumors, resulting in delayed diagnosis or missed cancers. Purpose To investigate the association between mammographic density and histopathologic tumor characteristics (histologic type, size, grade, and lymph node status) among women screened in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Material and Methods Information about 1760 screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 7366 invasive breast cancers diagnosed among women aged 50–69 years, 1996–2010, was analyzed. The screening mammograms were classified subjectively according to the amount of fibroglandular tissue into fatty, medium dense, and dense by breast radiologists. Chi-square test was used to compare the distribution of tumor characteristics by mammographic density. Odds ratio (OR) of tumor characteristics by density was estimated by means of logistic regression, adjusting for screening mode (screen-film and full-field digital mammography), and age. Results Mean and median tumor size of invasive breast cancers was 13.8 and 12 mm, respectively, for women with fatty breasts, and 16.2 and 14 mm for those with dense breasts. Lymph node positive tumors were identified among 20.6% of women with fatty breasts compared with 27.2% of those with dense breasts ( P < 0.001). The proportion of DCIS was significantly lower for women with fatty (15.8%) compared with dense breasts (22.0%). Women with dense breasts had an increased risk of large (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18–1.73) and lymph node positive tumors (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05–1.51) compared with women with fatty and medium dense breasts. Conclusion High mammographic density was positively associated with tumor size and lymph node positive tumors.

Download Full-text

Radiological review of prior screening mammograms of screen-detected breast cancer

European Radiology ◽

10.1007/s00330-020-07130-y ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Tone Hovda ◽

Kaitlyn Tsuruda ◽

Solveig Roth Hoff ◽

Kristine Kleivi Sahlberg ◽

Solveig Hofvind

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Mammographic Density ◽

Breast Imaging ◽

Screening Program ◽

Tumor Characteristics ◽

Breast Cancers ◽

Mammographic Finding ◽

Estrogen Receptor Positivity ◽

Screening Mammograms ◽

Screening And Diagnosis

Abstract Objective To perform a radiological review of mammograms from prior screening and diagnosis of screen-detected breast cancer in BreastScreen Norway, a population-based screening program. Methods We performed a consensus-based informed review of mammograms from prior screening and diagnosis for screen-detected breast cancers. Mammographic density and findings on screening and diagnostic mammograms were classified according to the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System®. Cases were classified based on visible findings on prior screening mammograms as true (no findings), missed (obvious findings), minimal signs (minor/non-specific findings), or occult (no findings at diagnosis). Histopathologic tumor characteristics were extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway. The Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for multiple testing; p < 0.001 was considered statistically significant. Results The study included mammograms for 1225 women with screen-detected breast cancer. Mean age was 62 years ± 5 (SD); 46% (567/1225) were classified as true, 22% (266/1225) as missed, and 32% (392/1225) as minimal signs. No difference in mammographic density was observed between the classification categories. At diagnosis, 59% (336/567) of true and 70% (185/266) of missed cancers were classified as masses (p = 0.004). The percentage of histological grade 3 cancers was higher for true (30% (138/469)) than for missed (14% (33/234)) cancers (p < 0.001). Estrogen receptor positivity was observed in 86% (387/469) of true and 95% (215/234) of missed (p < 0.001) cancers. Conclusions We classified 22% of the screen-detected cancers as missed based on a review of prior screening mammograms with diagnostic images available. One main goal of the study was quality improvement of radiologists’ performance and the program. Visible findings on prior screening mammograms were not necessarily indicative of screening failure. Key Points • After a consensus-based informed review, 46% of screen-detected breast cancers were classified as true, 22% as missed, and 32% as minimal signs. • Less favorable prognostic and predictive tumor characteristics were observed in true screen-detected breast cancer compared with missed. • The most frequent mammographic finding for all classification categories at the time of diagnosis was mass, while the most frequent mammographic finding on prior screening mammograms was a mass for missed cancers and asymmetry for minimal signs.

Download Full-text