Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 11/2016

01-10-2016 | Breast Oncology

How Beneficial is Follow-Up Mammography in Elderly Breast Cancer Survivors?

Authors: Kristen P. Massimino, MD, Maxine S. Jochelson, MD, Imelda E. Burgan, BA, Michelle Stempel, MPH, Monica Morrow, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the rate of non-palpable cancer detection and benign biopsy rates for follow-up mammograms in elderly breast cancer survivors.

Methods

Women 80 years of age and older who underwent operation for ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer from 2005 to 2010 and who had at least 6 months of follow-up were identified from a single-institution, prospectively maintained, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant database. Patients with mammographic, other imaging, or palpable abnormalities were identified, and the results of their imaging studies and biopsies were reviewed. Number of locoregional recurrences, contralateral cancers, and benign biopsies were determined. Follow-up and survival data were recorded.

Results

Overall, 429 women with a mean age of 83.4 years were included. Mean follow-up was 50.0 months (range 6–113). Patients had a median of four follow-up mammograms (range 0–11). The 1466 mammograms detected 17 biopsy-proven cancers and generated 18 benign biopsies. In the 305 women who had had breast-conserving surgery, 18 (5.9 %) experienced local recurrence, 9 detected by mammography alone (mean size 1.2 cm) and 9 palpable (mean size 2.0 cm). Contralateral cancer developed in 4 (0.9 %) of the 429 patients, all detected on screening mammogram alone.

Conclusion

Overall, 13 non-palpable breast cancers were detected in 1466 mammograms (0.9 %). While these results are acceptable for screening programs in healthy populations, further study of the need for routine follow-up imaging in the elderly, and the appropriate interval, is needed to maximize resource utilization.
Literature
1.
DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Siegel RL, Stein KD, Kramer JL, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):252–71.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bertelsen L, Bernstein L, Olsen JH, Mellemkjaer L, Haile RW, Lynch CF, et al. Effect of systemic adjuvant treatment on risk for contralateral breast cancer in the Women’s Environment, Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(1):32–40.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, Esserman LJ, Grunfeld E, Halberg F, et al. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(7):961–5.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Houssami N, Ciatto S. Mammographic surveillance in women with a personal history of breast cancer: how accurate? How effective? Breast. 2010;19(6):439–45.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lu WL, Jansen L, Post WJ, Bonnema J, Van de Velde JC, De Bock GH. Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(3):403–12.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Paszat L, Sutradhar R, Grunfeld E, Gainford C, Benk V, Bondy S, et al. Outcomes of surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a population-based case series. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(1):169–78.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, Struikmans H, Van den Bogaert W, Fourquet A, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(22):3259–65.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, Taylor C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9804):1707–16.CrossRef
9.
Mannino M, Yarnold JR. Local relapse rates are falling after breast conserving surgery and systemic therapy for early breast cancer: can radiotherapy ever be safely withheld? Radiother Oncol. 2009;90(1):14–22.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6):478–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Lash TL, Fox MP, Buist DS, Wei F, Field TS, Frost FJ, et al. Mammography surveillance and mortality in older breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3001–6.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Earle CC, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, Weeks JC. Quality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(8):1447–51.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB, Simard EP, Boscoe FP, Henley SJ, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(9):1290–314.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Land LH, Dalton SO, Jorgensen TL, Ewertz M. Comorbidity and survival after early breast cancer. A review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012;81(2):196–205.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Pierga JY, Girre V, Laurence V, Asselain B, Dieras V, Jouve M, et al. Characteristics and outcome of 1755 operable breast cancers in women over 70 years of age. Breast. 2004;13(5):369–75.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Schonberg MA, Ramanan RA, McCarthy EP, Marcantonio ER. Decision making and counseling around mammography screening for women aged 80 or older. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(9):979–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. (eds). American Joint Committee on Cancer, Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2010:347–376.
18.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Bellon JR, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, McCormick B, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2382–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Kiderlen M, van de Water W, Bastiaannet E, de Craen AJ, Westendorp RG, van de Velde CJ, et al. Survival and relapse free period of 2926 unselected older breast cancer patients: a FOCUS cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39(1):42–7.CrossRef
21.
Nichols HB, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lacey JV Jr, Rosenberg PS, Anderson WF. Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):1564–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):771–84.CrossRef
23.
Grunfeld E, Noorani H, McGahan L, Paszat L, Coyle D, van Walraven C, et al. Surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast. 2002;11(3):228–35.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Fourquet A, Campana F, Zafrani B, Mosseri V, Vielh P, Durand JC, et al. Prognostic factors of breast recurrence in the conservative management of early breast cancer: a 25-year follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;17(4):719–25.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Galper S, Blood E, Gelman R, Abner A, Recht A, Kohli A, et al. Prognosis after local recurrence after conservative surgery and radiation for early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(2):348–57.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(13):1–170, v–vi.
28.
Bessen T, Karnon J. A patient-level calibration framework for evaluating surveillance strategies: a case study of mammographic follow-up after early breast cancer. Value Health. 2014;17(6):669–78.CrossRefPubMed
29.
van Ravesteyn NT, Stout NK, Schechter CB, Heijnsdijk EA, Alagoz O, Trentham-Dietz A, et al. Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(7):djv103.
30.
Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YC, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–614.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement [published erratum appears. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(10):688, and Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(3):199–200]. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716–26, W-236.
Metadata
Title
How Beneficial is Follow-Up Mammography in Elderly Breast Cancer Survivors?
Authors
Kristen P. Massimino, MD
Maxine S. Jochelson, MD
Imelda E. Burgan, BA
Michelle Stempel, MPH
Monica Morrow, MD
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5301-5

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 11/2016 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Should New “No Ink On Tumor” Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines be Applied to Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)? A Retrospective Review Using Shaved Cavity Margins

Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Local Control Modality and Outcome for Ewing Sarcoma of the Femur: A Report From the Children’s Oncology Group

Breast Oncology

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Axillary Metastases: Can We Avoid the Unavoidable?

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Biomarkers of EBV-positive Gastric Cancers: Loss of PTEN Expression is Associated with Poor Prognosis and Nodal Metastasis

Thoracic Oncology

Is Survival for Patients with Resectable Lung Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Comparable to Those with Resectable Liver Disease? Results from the South Australian Metastatic Colorectal Registry

Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Guidelines for the Treatment of Recurrent Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: Are we Trying to Fit a Square Peg into a Round Hole?