scholarly journals Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers

2015 ◽  
Vol 205 (3) ◽  
pp. 676-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise M. Henderson ◽  
Diana L. Miglioretti ◽  
Karla Kerlikowske ◽  
Karen J. Wernli ◽  
Brian L. Sprague ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Screen Mammography ◽  
Interval Cancers ◽  
Versus Film

scholarly journals Tumour Size at Detection According to Different Measures of Mammographic Breast Density

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 140-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Nickson ◽  
Anne M Kavanagh
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Density ◽  
Tumour Size ◽  
Mammographic Screening ◽  
Cancer Prognosis ◽  
Mammographic Breast Density ◽  
Interval Cancers ◽  
Dense Area ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Continuous Measures

Objectives Breast cancer prognosis is better for smaller tumours. Women with high breast density are at higher risk of breast cancer and have larger screen-detected and interval cancers in mammographic screening programmes. We assess which continuous measures of breast density are the strongest predictors of breast tumour size at detection and therefore the best measures to identify women who might benefit from more intensive mammographic screening or alternative screening strategies. Setting and methods We compared the association between breast density and tumour size for 1007 screen-detected and 341 interval cancers diagnosed in an Australian mammographic screening programme between 1994 and 1996, for three semi-automated continuous measures of breast density: per cent density, dense area and dense area adjusted for non-dense area. Results After adjustment for age, hormone therapy use, family history of breast cancer and mode of detection (screen-detected or interval cancers), all measures of breast density shared a similar positive and significant association with tumour size. For example, tumours increased in size with dense area from an estimated mean 2.2 mm larger in the second quintile (β = 2.2; 95% Cl 0.4–3.9, P < 0.001) to mean 6.6 mm larger in the highest decile of dense area (β = 6.6; 95% Cl 4.4–8.9, P < 0.001), when compared with first quintile of breast density. Conclusions Of the breast density measures assessed, either dense area or per cent density are suitable measures for identifying women who might benefit from more intensive mammographic screening or alternative screening strategies.

Screening Sensitivity According to Breast Cancer Location

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Théberge ◽  
Marie-Hélène Guertin ◽  
Nathalie Vandal ◽  
Gary Côté ◽  
Michel-Pierre Dufresne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Density ◽  
Central Area ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Interval Cancers ◽  
Experienced Radiologist ◽  
Sensitivity Ratio ◽  
Screening Mammograms ◽  
Screening Sensitivity ◽  
Adjusted Sensitivity

Purpose To examine the relation between breast cancer location and screening mammogram sensitivity, and assess whether this association is modified by body mass index (BMI) or breast density. Methods This study is based on all interval cancers (n = 481) and a random sample of screen-detected cancers (n = 481) diagnosed in Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program participants in 2007. Film-screening mammograms, diagnostic mammograms, and ultrasound reports (when available) were requested for these cases. The breast cancer was then localised in mediolateral oblique (MLO) and craniocaudal (CC) projections of the breast by 1 experienced radiologist. The association between cancer location and screening sensitivity was assessed by logistic regression. Adjusted sensitivity and sensitivity ratios were obtained by marginal standardisation. Results A total of 369 screen-detected and 268 interval cancers could be localised in MLO and/or CC projections. The 2-year sensitivity reached 68%. Overall, sensitivity was not statistically associated with location of the cancer. However, sensitivity seems lower in MLO posterior inferior area for women with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 compared to sensitivity in central area for women with lower BMI (adjusted sensitivity ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17–0.98). Lower sensitivity was also observed in subareolar areas for women with breast density ≥ 50% compared to the central areas for women with lower breast density (for MLO and CC projections, adjusted sensitivity ratio and 95% CI of, respectively, 0.54 [0.13–0.96] and 0.46 [0.01–0.93]). Conclusions Screening sensitivity seems lower in MLO posterior inferior area in women with higher BMI and in subareolar areas in women with higher breast density. When interpreting screening mammograms, radiologists need to pay special attention to these areas.

scholarly journals A simple way to measure the burden of interval cancers in breast cancer screening

BMC Cancer ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sune Bangsbøll Andersen ◽  
Sven Törnberg ◽  
Elsebeth Lynge ◽  
My Von Euler-Chelpin ◽  
Sisse Helle Njor
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Interval Cancers

scholarly journals Survival Outcomes of Screening with Breast MRI in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-35
Author(s):  
Min Sun Bae ◽  
Janice S Sung ◽  
Blanca Bernard-Davila ◽  
Elizabeth J Sutton ◽  
Christopher E Comstock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Elevated Risk ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Interval Cancers ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Objective To determine survival outcomes in women with breast cancer detected at combined screening with breast MRI and mammography versus screening mammography alone. Methods This is an institutional review board-approved retrospective study, and the need for informed consent was waived. A total of 3002 women with an increased risk of breast cancer were screened between 2001 and 2004. Of the 3002 women, 1534 (51.1%) had 2780 combined screenings (MRI and mammography) and 1468 (48.9%) had 4811 mammography-only screenings. The Χ2 test and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to compare cancer detection rates and survival rates. Results The overall cancer detection rate was significantly higher in the MRI plus mammography group compared with the mammography-only group (1.4% [40 of 2780] vs 0.5% [23 of 4811]; P &lt; 0.001). No interval cancers occurred in the MRI plus mammography group, whereas 9 interval cancers were found in the mammography-only group. During a median follow-up of 10.9 years (range: 0.7 to 15.2), a total of 11 recurrences and 5 deaths occurred. Of the 11 recurrences, 6 were in the MRI plus mammography group and 5 were in the mammography-only group. All five deaths occurred in the mammography-only group. Disease-free survival showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.32). However, overall survival was significantly improved in the MRI plus mammography group (P = 0.002). Conclusion Combined screening with MRI and mammography in women at elevated risk of breast cancer improves cancer detection and overall survival.

scholarly journals The Mode of Detection Is Not Associated with Quality of Life in Women with Breast Cancer

Breast Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 498-505
Author(s):  
Bettina Braun ◽  
Marc-André Kurosinski ◽  
Laura Khil ◽  
Joke Tio ◽  
Barbara Krause-Bergmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Screening Mammography ◽  
Influential Factors ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Interval Cancers ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Mode Of Detection

Introduction: Apart from saving lives, mammography screening programs (MSP) are expected to reduce negative side effects of treatment by detecting cancer earlier, when it is more responsive to less aggressive treatment. This study compared quality of life (QoL) among women with breast cancers that were detected either by screening mammography, as interval cancers, or clinically among women not participating in the MSP. Methods: Retrospective study of first-ever invasive breast cancers detected among MSP-eligible women aged 50–69 years between 2006 and 2012 in Münster, Germany. EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 questionnaires were mailed to 1,399 cases still alive in 2015 (response rate 64.1%). Results: Women’s responses were obtained on average 6.1 years after diagnosis. Mean crude and age-adjusted scores for overall QoL, breast and body image (BBI), and five functional scales (FS) were comparable between groups of detection mode. Clearly lower adjusted means for most scores were observed in women with interval cancers, if time since diagnosis was less than 5 years. Cases younger than 60 years showed lower values for some FS, particularly among interval and screen-detected cases. Discussion/Conclusion: In summary, cases with breast cancer showed health-related score values that were similar to the general population of the same age. There was also no indication that mode of detection markedly influenced these scores. However, after adjusting for tumor stage and other influential factors, screening participants appeared more susceptible to score declines after a diagnosis of cancer than non-participants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document