Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013

01-04-2013 | Epidemiology

Cumulative risk of cancer detection in breast cancer screening by protocol strategy

Authors: J. Blanch, M. Sala, M. Román, M. Ederra, D. Salas, R. Zubizarreta, M. Sanchez, M. Rué, X. Castells, CFPR group

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background There is little information on the individual risk of screen-detected cancer in women over successive participations. This study aimed to estimate the 10-year cumulative breast cancer detection risk (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma) in a population-based breast cancer screening program according to distinct protocol strategies. A further aim was to determine which strategies maximized the cancer detection risk and how this risk was affected by the radiologic protocol variables. Methods Data were drawn from a retrospective cohort of women from nine population-based screening programs in Spain from 1990 to 2006. We used logistic regression with discrete intervals to estimate the cumulative detection risk at 10 years of follow-up according to radiologic variables and protocol strategies. Results In women starting screening at the age of 45–59 years, the cumulative risk of screen-detected cancer at 10 years ranged from 11.11 to 16.71 per 1,000 participants according to the protocol strategy. The cumulative detection risk for overall cancer and invasive cancer was the highest with strategies using digital mammography, double reading, and two projections (16.71 and 12.07 ‰, respectively). For ductal carcinoma in situ, cumulative detection risk was the highest with strategies using screen-film, double reading, and two projections (2.32 ‰). The risk was the lowest with strategies using screen-film mammography, single reading, and two projections. Conclusions This study found that at least eleven cancers are detected per 1,000 women screened in the first 10 years of follow-up. Enhanced knowledge of the variability in cumulative risk of screen-detected cancer could improve protocol strategies.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Suhrke P, Maehlen J, Schlichting E, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Zahl PH (2011) Effect of mammography screening on surgical treatment for breast cancer in Norway: comparative analysis of cancer registry data. BMJ 343:d4692PubMedCrossRef Suhrke P, Maehlen J, Schlichting E, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Zahl PH (2011) Effect of mammography screening on surgical treatment for breast cancer in Norway: comparative analysis of cancer registry data. BMJ 343:d4692PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Glover JA, Bannon FJ, Hughes CM et al (2012) Increased diagnosis and detection rates of carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(2):779–784PubMedCrossRef Glover JA, Bannon FJ, Hughes CM et al (2012) Increased diagnosis and detection rates of carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(2):779–784PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Puig-Vives M, Pollan M, Rue M et al (2012) Rapid increase in incidence of breast ductal carcinoma in situ in Girona, Spain 1983–2007. Breast 21(5):646–651PubMedCrossRef Puig-Vives M, Pollan M, Rue M et al (2012) Rapid increase in incidence of breast ductal carcinoma in situ in Girona, Spain 1983–2007. Breast 21(5):646–651PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL (2010) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(3):170–178PubMedCrossRef Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL (2010) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(3):170–178PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Jones JL (2006) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: progression of ductal carcinoma in situ: the pathological perspective. Breast Cancer Res 8(2):204PubMedCrossRef Jones JL (2006) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: progression of ductal carcinoma in situ: the pathological perspective. Breast Cancer Res 8(2):204PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Taplin S, Abraham L, Barlow WE et al (2008) Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(12):876–887PubMedCrossRef Taplin S, Abraham L, Barlow WE et al (2008) Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(12):876–887PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Shaw CM, Flanagan FL, Fenlon HM, McNicholas MM (2009) Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience. Radiology 250(2):354–362PubMedCrossRef Shaw CM, Flanagan FL, Fenlon HM, McNicholas MM (2009) Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience. Radiology 250(2):354–362PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Blanks RG, Given-Wilson RM, Moss SM (1998) Efficiency of cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening: two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 5(3):141–145PubMed Blanks RG, Given-Wilson RM, Moss SM (1998) Efficiency of cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening: two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 5(3):141–145PubMed
9.
go back to reference Williams LJ, Hartswood M, Prescott RJ (1998) Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies. J Med Screen 5(4):202–206PubMed Williams LJ, Hartswood M, Prescott RJ (1998) Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies. J Med Screen 5(4):202–206PubMed
10.
go back to reference Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252(1):31–39PubMedCrossRef Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252(1):31–39PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Groenewoud JH, Donkers-van Rossum AB, Voogd AC (2012) Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 23(12):3098–3103PubMedCrossRef Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Groenewoud JH, Donkers-van Rossum AB, Voogd AC (2012) Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 23(12):3098–3103PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Roman R, Sala M, Salas D, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X (2011) Effect of protocol-related variables and women’s characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Ann Oncol 23(1):104–111PubMedCrossRef Roman R, Sala M, Salas D, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X (2011) Effect of protocol-related variables and women’s characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Ann Oncol 23(1):104–111PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Roman R, Sala M, De La Vega M et al (2011) Effect of false-positives and women’s characteristics on long-term adherence to breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130(2):543–552PubMedCrossRef Roman R, Sala M, De La Vega M et al (2011) Effect of false-positives and women’s characteristics on long-term adherence to breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130(2):543–552PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg
15.
go back to reference Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2002) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2002) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
16.
go back to reference Singer J, Willett JB (2003) Fitting basic discrete-time hazard models. In: Singer J, Willett JB (eds) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modelling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 357–467CrossRef Singer J, Willett JB (2003) Fitting basic discrete-time hazard models. In: Singer J, Willett JB (eds) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modelling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 357–467CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Singer J, Willett JB (2003) Describing discrete-time event occurrence data. In: Singer J, Willett JB (eds) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modelling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 325–356CrossRef Singer J, Willett JB (2003) Describing discrete-time event occurrence data. In: Singer J, Willett JB (eds) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modelling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 325–356CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fay MP, Pfeiffer R, Cronin KA, Le C, Feuer EJ (2003) Age-conditional probabilities of developing cancer. Stat Med 22(11):1837–1848PubMedCrossRef Fay MP, Pfeiffer R, Cronin KA, Le C, Feuer EJ (2003) Age-conditional probabilities of developing cancer. Stat Med 22(11):1837–1848PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Welch HG, Frankel BA (2011) Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her “life saved” by that screening. Arch Intern Med 171(22):2043–2046PubMedCrossRef Welch HG, Frankel BA (2011) Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her “life saved” by that screening. Arch Intern Med 171(22):2043–2046PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Pashayan N, Duffy SW, Chowdhury S et al (2011) Polygenic susceptibility to prostate and breast cancer: implications for personalised screening. Br J Cancer 104(10):1656–1663PubMedCrossRef Pashayan N, Duffy SW, Chowdhury S et al (2011) Polygenic susceptibility to prostate and breast cancer: implications for personalised screening. Br J Cancer 104(10):1656–1663PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Goossens MC, De Greve J (2010) Individual cancer risk as a function of current age and risk profile. Eur J Cancer Prev 19(6):485–495PubMedCrossRef Goossens MC, De Greve J (2010) Individual cancer risk as a function of current age and risk profile. Eur J Cancer Prev 19(6):485–495PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Fay MP (2004) Estimating age conditional probability of developing disease from surveillance data. Popul Health Metr 2(1):6PubMedCrossRef Fay MP (2004) Estimating age conditional probability of developing disease from surveillance data. Popul Health Metr 2(1):6PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wun LM, Merrill RM, Feuer EJ (1998) Estimating lifetime and age-conditional probabilities of developing cancer. Lifetime Data Anal 4(2):169–186PubMedCrossRef Wun LM, Merrill RM, Feuer EJ (1998) Estimating lifetime and age-conditional probabilities of developing cancer. Lifetime Data Anal 4(2):169–186PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F (2010) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10 Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F (2010) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10
25.
go back to reference Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M et al (2012) Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):72–82PubMedCrossRef Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M et al (2012) Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):72–82PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM (1998) A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen 5(4):195–201PubMed Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM (1998) A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen 5(4):195–201PubMed
27.
go back to reference Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE (1994) The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 49(4):248–251PubMedCrossRef Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE (1994) The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 49(4):248–251PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference de Gelder R, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA et al (2011) Digital mammography screening: weighing reduced mortality against increased overdiagnosis. Prev Med 53(3):134–140PubMedCrossRef de Gelder R, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA et al (2011) Digital mammography screening: weighing reduced mortality against increased overdiagnosis. Prev Med 53(3):134–140PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(4):860–866PubMedCrossRef Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(4):860–866PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Domingo L, Romero A, Belvis F et al (2011) Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. Eur Radiol 21(9):2020–2028PubMedCrossRef Domingo L, Romero A, Belvis F et al (2011) Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. Eur Radiol 21(9):2020–2028PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, Glasziou P (2006) Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 332(7543):678–679PubMedCrossRef Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, Glasziou P (2006) Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 332(7543):678–679PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference de Roos MA, Pijnappel RM, Groote AD, de Vries J, Post WJ, Baas PC (2004) Ductal carcinoma in situ presenting as microcalcifications: the effect of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy on surgical therapy. Breast 13(6):461–467PubMedCrossRef de Roos MA, Pijnappel RM, Groote AD, de Vries J, Post WJ, Baas PC (2004) Ductal carcinoma in situ presenting as microcalcifications: the effect of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy on surgical therapy. Breast 13(6):461–467PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cumulative risk of cancer detection in breast cancer screening by protocol strategy
Authors
J. Blanch
M. Sala
M. Román
M. Ederra
D. Salas
R. Zubizarreta
M. Sanchez
M. Rué
X. Castells
CFPR group
Publication date
01-04-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2458-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013 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