Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 7/2006

01-09-2006 | Original Paper

Benefit of screening mammography in reducing the rate of late-stage breast cancer diagnoses (United States)

Authors: Sandra A. Norman, A. Russell Localio, Lan Zhou, Anita L. Weber, Ralph J. Coates, Kathleen E. Malone, Leslie Bernstein, Polly A. Marchbanks, Jonathan M. Liff, Nancy C. Lee, Marion R. Nadel

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 7/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

We studied the benefit of modern mammography screening in community settings, evaluating age-related differences in rates of late-stage breast cancer detection.

Methods

Our multicenter population-based case–control study included 931 black and white women with incident breast cancer (American Joint Commission on Cancer Stage IIB or higher) diagnosed 1994–1998 and 4,016 randomly sampled controls never diagnosed with breast cancer. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) estimated the relative rate of late-stage diagnosis in screened and non-screened women.

Results

Women aged 50–64 at diagnosis with at least one screening mammogram in the previous 2 years were significantly less likely to have late-stage diagnosis (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.33–0.52). Results for women aged 40–49 were consistent with a screening benefit, although the confidence interval marginally overlapped the null (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.64–1.02). Mammography screening was associated with lower rates of late-stage breast cancer among both premenopausal (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50–0.81) and postmenopausal (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.35–0.56) women.

Conclusions

With modern mammography in the community, rates of late-stage breast cancer diagnoses are lower in screened compared to non-screened women ages 40 and older, but age-related differences persist.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al (2003) American cancer society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:141–169PubMed Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al (2003) American cancer society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:141–169PubMed
2.
go back to reference U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HHS affirms value of mammography for detecting breast cancer. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020221.html; 2002 February 21, 2002 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HHS affirms value of mammography for detecting breast cancer. Available at http://​www.​hhs.​gov/​news/​press/​2002pres/​20020221.​html; 2002 February 21, 2002
3.
go back to reference Feig S, D’Orsi C, Hendrik R, et al (1998) American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. Am J Roentgenol 171:29–33 Feig S, D’Orsi C, Hendrik R, et al (1998) American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. Am J Roentgenol 171:29–33
4.
go back to reference American Medical Association. Report 16 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-99). Mammographic Screening for Asymptomatic Women. Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13541.html American Medical Association. Report 16 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-99). Mammographic Screening for Asymptomatic Women. Available at http://​www.​ama-assn.​org/​ama/​pub/​category/​13541.​html
5.
go back to reference American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2000) Primary and preventive care: periodic assessments. ACOG Committee Opinion 246. Washington, DC, ACOG American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2000) Primary and preventive care: periodic assessments. ACOG Committee Opinion 246. Washington, DC, ACOG
6.
go back to reference Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360PubMed Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360PubMed
7.
go back to reference Eyre H, Sondik E, Smith R, Kessler L (1995) Joint meeting on the feasibility of a study of screening premenopausal women (40–49 years) for breast cancer: April 20–21, 1994. Cancer 75:1391–1403PubMedCrossRef Eyre H, Sondik E, Smith R, Kessler L (1995) Joint meeting on the feasibility of a study of screening premenopausal women (40–49 years) for breast cancer: April 20–21, 1994. Cancer 75:1391–1403PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hurley S, Kaldor J (1992) The benefits and risks of mammography screening for breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev 14:101–130PubMed Hurley S, Kaldor J (1992) The benefits and risks of mammography screening for breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev 14:101–130PubMed
9.
go back to reference Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AK (1993) The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women. Online J Curr Clin Trials 23:Doc No 32 Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AK (1993) The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women. Online J Curr Clin Trials 23:Doc No 32
10.
go back to reference Demissie K, Mills O, Rhoads G (1998) Empirical comparison of the results of randomized controlled trials and case–control studies in evaluating the effectiveness of screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 51:81–91PubMedCrossRef Demissie K, Mills O, Rhoads G (1998) Empirical comparison of the results of randomized controlled trials and case–control studies in evaluating the effectiveness of screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 51:81–91PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Weiss N, Lazovich D (1996) Case–control studies of screening efficacy: the use of persons newly diagnosed with cancer who later sustain an unfavorable outcome. Am J Epidemiol 143:319–322PubMed Weiss N, Lazovich D (1996) Case–control studies of screening efficacy: the use of persons newly diagnosed with cancer who later sustain an unfavorable outcome. Am J Epidemiol 143:319–322PubMed
12.
go back to reference Weiss N (1994) Application of the case–control method in the evaluation of screening. Epidemiol Rev 16:102–108PubMed Weiss N (1994) Application of the case–control method in the evaluation of screening. Epidemiol Rev 16:102–108PubMed
13.
go back to reference Elmore J, Armstrong K, Lehman C, Fletcher S (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293:1245–1256PubMedCrossRef Elmore J, Armstrong K, Lehman C, Fletcher S (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293:1245–1256PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Last JM (2001) A Dictionary of epidemiology, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York Last JM (2001) A Dictionary of epidemiology, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York
15.
go back to reference Harris R (2005) Effectiveness: the next question for breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1021–1023PubMed Harris R (2005) Effectiveness: the next question for breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1021–1023PubMed
16.
go back to reference Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al (2002) The NICHD women’s contraceptive and reproductive experiences study: methods and operational results. Ann Epidemiol 12:213–221PubMedCrossRef Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al (2002) The NICHD women’s contraceptive and reproductive experiences study: methods and operational results. Ann Epidemiol 12:213–221PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Ries L, Eisner M, Kosary C, et al (2004) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2001. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2004. Report No.: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2001 Ries L, Eisner M, Kosary C, et al (2004) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2001. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2004. Report No.: http://​seer.​cancer.​gov/​csr/​1975_​2001
18.
go back to reference Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al (2002) Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 346:2025–2032PubMedCrossRef Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al (2002) Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 346:2025–2032PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Weiss LK, Burkman RT, Cushing-Haugen K, et al (2002) Hormone replacement therapy regimens and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol 100:1148–1158PubMedCrossRef Weiss LK, Burkman RT, Cushing-Haugen K, et al (2002) Hormone replacement therapy regimens and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol 100:1148–1158PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Norman SA, Localio AR, Zhou L, et al (2003) Validation of self-reported screening mammography histories among women with and without breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 158:264–271PubMedCrossRef Norman SA, Localio AR, Zhou L, et al (2003) Validation of self-reported screening mammography histories among women with and without breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 158:264–271PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Weiss N, Etzioni R (2002) Estimating the influence of rescreening interval on the benefits associated with cancer screening: approaches and limitations. Epidemiology 13:713–717PubMedCrossRef Weiss N, Etzioni R (2002) Estimating the influence of rescreening interval on the benefits associated with cancer screening: approaches and limitations. Epidemiology 13:713–717PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al (2002) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer-Verlag, New York Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al (2002) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer-Verlag, New York
23.
go back to reference Ostbye T, Taylor DJ, Yancy WJ, Krause K (2005) Associations between obesity and receipt of screening mammography, Papanicolaou tests, and influenza vaccination: results from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) Study. Am J Public Health 95:1623–1630PubMedCrossRef Ostbye T, Taylor DJ, Yancy WJ, Krause K (2005) Associations between obesity and receipt of screening mammography, Papanicolaou tests, and influenza vaccination: results from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) Study. Am J Public Health 95:1623–1630PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Wee C, McCarthy E, Davis R, Phillips R (2000) Screening for cervical and breast cancer: is obesity an unrecognized barrier to preventive care? Ann Intern Med 132:697–704PubMed Wee C, McCarthy E, Davis R, Phillips R (2000) Screening for cervical and breast cancer: is obesity an unrecognized barrier to preventive care? Ann Intern Med 132:697–704PubMed
25.
go back to reference Etzioni R, Weiss N (1998) Analysis of case–control studies of screening: impact of misspecifying the duration of detectable preclinical pathologic changes. Am J Epidemiol 148:292–297PubMed Etzioni R, Weiss N (1998) Analysis of case–control studies of screening: impact of misspecifying the duration of detectable preclinical pathologic changes. Am J Epidemiol 148:292–297PubMed
26.
go back to reference Hosek R, Flanders W, Sasco A (1996) Bias in case–control studies of screening effectiveness. Am J Epidemiol 143:193–201PubMed Hosek R, Flanders W, Sasco A (1996) Bias in case–control studies of screening effectiveness. Am J Epidemiol 143:193–201PubMed
27.
go back to reference Smith R, Duffy S, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen A, Chen T (2004) The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 42:793–806PubMedCrossRef Smith R, Duffy S, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen A, Chen T (2004) The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 42:793–806PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H, Duffy S, Gad A (1995) Screening for breast cancer in women aged under 50: mode of detection, incidence, fatality, and histology. J Medical Screen 2:94–98 Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H, Duffy S, Gad A (1995) Screening for breast cancer in women aged under 50: mode of detection, incidence, fatality, and histology. J Medical Screen 2:94–98
29.
go back to reference Tabar L, Faberberg G, Day N, Holmberg L (1987) What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations?—An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial. Br J Cancer 55:547–551PubMed Tabar L, Faberberg G, Day N, Holmberg L (1987) What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations?—An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial. Br J Cancer 55:547–551PubMed
30.
go back to reference Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H-H, et al (1995) Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. Cancer 75:2507–2517PubMedCrossRef Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H-H, et al (1995) Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. Cancer 75:2507–2517PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference The Breast Screening Frequency Trial Group (2002) The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial. Eur J Cancer 38:1458–1464CrossRef The Breast Screening Frequency Trial Group (2002) The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial. Eur J Cancer 38:1458–1464CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Smart C, Hartman W, Beahrs O, Garfinkel L (1993) Insights into breast cancer screening of younger women: evidence from the 14-year follow-up of the breast cancer detection demonstration project. Cancer 72:1449–1456PubMedCrossRef Smart C, Hartman W, Beahrs O, Garfinkel L (1993) Insights into breast cancer screening of younger women: evidence from the 14-year follow-up of the breast cancer detection demonstration project. Cancer 72:1449–1456PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Duffy S, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al (2003) The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 39:1755–1760PubMedCrossRef Duffy S, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al (2003) The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 39:1755–1760PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Buist D, Porter P, Lehman C, Taplin S, White E (2004) Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1432–1440PubMedCrossRef Buist D, Porter P, Lehman C, Taplin S, White E (2004) Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1432–1440PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Carney P, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B, et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMed Carney P, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B, et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMed
36.
go back to reference Stone J, Gunasekara A, Martin L, Yaffe M, Minkin S, Boyd N (2003) The detection of change in mammographic density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:625–630PubMed Stone J, Gunasekara A, Martin L, Yaffe M, Minkin S, Boyd N (2003) The detection of change in mammographic density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:625–630PubMed
37.
go back to reference Boyd N, Martin L, Stone J, Little L, Minkin S, Yaffe M (2002) A longitudinal study of the effects of menopause on mammographic features. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:1048–1053PubMed Boyd N, Martin L, Stone J, Little L, Minkin S, Yaffe M (2002) A longitudinal study of the effects of menopause on mammographic features. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:1048–1053PubMed
38.
go back to reference Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Longterm effects of mammography screening: updated overview and the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919PubMedCrossRef Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Longterm effects of mammography screening: updated overview and the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference American Cancer Society (2006) How is breast cancer staged? Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_3X_How_is_breast_cancer_staged_5.asp?sitearea = CRI&viewmode = print&; 2006 March 10, 2006 American Cancer Society (2006) How is breast cancer staged? Available at: http://​www.​cancer.​org/​docroot/​CRI/​content/​CRI_​2_​4_​3X_​How_​is_​breast_​cancer_​staged_​5.​asp?​sitearea = CRI&viewmode = print&; 2006 March 10, 2006
40.
go back to reference Houn F, Brown ML (1994) Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology 190:209–215PubMed Houn F, Brown ML (1994) Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology 190:209–215PubMed
41.
go back to reference Zapka JG, Bigelow C, Hurley T, et al (1996) Mammography use among sociodemographically diverse women: the accuracy of self-report. Am J Public Health 86:1016–1021PubMedCrossRef Zapka JG, Bigelow C, Hurley T, et al (1996) Mammography use among sociodemographically diverse women: the accuracy of self-report. Am J Public Health 86:1016–1021PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov). SEER*Stat Database: Mortality—All COD, Public Use With State, Total U.S. (1969–2002) Underlying mortality data provided by NCHS (www.cdc.gov/nchs). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch; 2005 April, 2005 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov). SEER*Stat Database: Mortality—All COD, Public Use With State, Total U.S. (1969–2002) Underlying mortality data provided by NCHS (www.cdc.gov/nchs). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch; 2005 April, 2005
Metadata
Title
Benefit of screening mammography in reducing the rate of late-stage breast cancer diagnoses (United States)
Authors
Sandra A. Norman
A. Russell Localio
Lan Zhou
Anita L. Weber
Ralph J. Coates
Kathleen E. Malone
Leslie Bernstein
Polly A. Marchbanks
Jonathan M. Liff
Nancy C. Lee
Marion R. Nadel
Publication date
01-09-2006
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 7/2006
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-006-0029-3

Other articles of this Issue 7/2006

Cancer Causes & Control 7/2006 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine