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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013

01-02-2013 | Review

Reduction in rate of node metastases with breast screening: consistency of association with tumor size

Authors: I. D. Nagtegaal, S. W. Duffy

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

Login to get access

Abstract

Population screening has brought about changes in both the incidence and mortality rates of patients with breast cancer. Large numbers of small screen-detected tumors have inspired discussions about overdiagnosis based on potential biological differences between screen-detected and symptomatic cancers. In the current systematic review, we analyzed the relation and the interaction of tumor size and nodal status in correlation with screening. Smaller tumors were more frequently screen detected (pT1 78.5 %) than symptomatic (pT1 61.7 %, p < 0.001), with a RR of 1.6 (95 % CI 1.4–1.8, n = 41,209). In the screened population, pT1 tumors were also more frequent (68.5 vs 49.9 %, n = 51,171, p < 0.001). Positive lymph nodes were less frequent in screen-detected tumors (26.8 vs 46.3 %, n = 43,705, p < 0.001) as well as in screened populations as a whole (24.1 vs 44.9 %, n = 49,581, p < 0.001). The relation between size and nodal status was not different between the screen-detected and the symptomatic tumors [pT2+N+ OR 2.42 (95 % CI 1.69–3.48) vs OR 2.91 (95 % CI 2.41–3.51)], suggesting that biological differences, if present, are small. In this systematic review, we confirmed both the association of screening with smaller tumor size at presentation and the consequent reduction in lymph node metastases.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Anderson TJ, Lamb J, Donnan P, Alexander FE, Huggins A, Muir BB, Kirkpatrick AE, Chetty U, Hepburn W, Smith A (1991) Comparative pathology of breast cancer in a randomised trial of screening. Br J Cancer 64:108–113PubMedCrossRef
2.
Anderson TJ, Waller M, Ellis IO, Bobrow L, Moss S (2004) Influence of annual mammography from age 40 on breast cancer pathology. Hum Pathol 35:1252–1259PubMedCrossRef
3.
Arisio R, Sapino A, Cassoni P, Accinelli G, Cuccorese MC, Mano MP, Bussolati G (2000) What modifies the relation between tumour size and lymph node metastases in T1 breast carcinomas? J Clin Pathol 53:846–850PubMedCrossRef
4.
Aubard Y, Genet D, Eyraud JL, Clavere P, Tubiana-Mathieu N, Philippe HJ (2002) Impact of screening on breast cancer detection. Retrospective comparative study of two periods 10 years apart. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 23:37–41PubMed
5.
Barth A, Craig PH, Silverstein MJ (1997) Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with T1 breast carcinoma. Cancer 79:1918–1922PubMedCrossRef
6.
BSFTG (2002) The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial. United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research. Eur J Cancer 38:1458–1464CrossRef
7.
Bucchi L, Puliti D, Ravaioli A, Cortesi L, De LV, Falcini F, Ferretti S, Frigerio A, Mangone L, Petrella M, Petrucci C, de Sassoli BP, Traina A, Tumino R, Zanetti R, Zorzi M, Paci E (2008) Breast screening: axillary lymph node status of interval cancers by interval year. Breast 17:477–483PubMedCrossRef
8.
Cody HS III (1995) The impact of mammography in 1096 consecutive patients with breast cancer, 1979–1993: equal value for patients younger and older than age 50 years. Cancer 76:1579–1584PubMedCrossRef
9.
Collett K, Stefansson IM, Eide J, Braaten A, Wang H, Eide GE, Thoresen SO, Foulkes WD, Akslen LA (2005) A basal epithelial phenotype is more frequent in interval breast cancers compared with screen detected tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:1108–1112PubMedCrossRef
10.
Cortesi L, Chiuri VE, Ruscelli S, Bellelli V, Negri R, Rashid I, Cirilli C, Fracca A, Gallo E, Federico M (2006) Prognosis of screen-detected breast cancers: results of a population based study. BMC Cancer 6:17PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dawson SJ, Duffy SW, Blows FM, Driver KE, Provenzano E, LeQuesne J, Greenberg DC, Pharoah P, Caldas C, Wishart GC (2009) Molecular characteristics of screen-detected vs symptomatic breast cancers and their impact on survival. Br J Cancer 101:1338–1344PubMedCrossRef
12.
Domingo L, Sala M, Servitja S, Corominas JM, Ferrer F, Martinez J, Macia F, Quintana MJ, Albanell J, Castells X (2010) Phenotypic characterization and risk factors for interval breast cancers in a population-based breast cancer screening program in Barcelona, Spain. Cancer Causes Control 21:1155–1164PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ernst MF, Roukema JA, Coebergh JW, Repelaer van Driel OJ, van Beek MW, van der Sangen MJ, Voogd AC (2002) Breast cancers found by screening: earlier detection, lower malignant potential or both? Breast Cancer Res Treat 76:19–25PubMedCrossRef
14.
Ernst MF, Voogd AC, Coebergh JW, Roukema JA (2004) Breast carcinoma diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis before and after the introduction of mass mammographic screening. Cancer 100:1337–1344PubMedCrossRef
15.
Freedman GM, Anderson PR, Goldstein LJ, Hanlon AL, Cianfrocca ME, Millenson MM, von MM, Torosian MH, Boraas MC, Nicolaou N, Patchefsky AS, Evers K (2003) Routine mammography is associated with earlier stage disease and greater eligibility for breast conservation in breast carcinoma patients age 40 years and older. Cancer 98:918–925PubMedCrossRef
16.
Gabriel H, Wilson TE, Helvie MA (1997) Breast cancer in women 65–74 years old: earlier detection by mammographic screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:23–27PubMed
17.
Hakama M, Holli K, Isola J, Kallioniemi OP, Karkkainen A, Visakorpi T, Pukkala E, Saarenmaa I, Geiger U, Ikkala J (1995) Aggressiveness of screen-detected breast cancers. Lancet 345:221–224PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hanrahan EO, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Giordano SH, Rouzier R, Broglio KR, Hortobagyi GN, Valero V (2007) Overall survival and cause-specific mortality of patients with stage T1a, bN0M0 breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 25:4952–4960PubMedCrossRef
19.
Hanrahan EO, Valero V, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hortobagyi GN (2006) Prognosis and management of patients with node-negative invasive breast carcinoma that is 1 cm or smaller in size (stage 1; T1a, bN0M0): a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 24:2113–2122PubMedCrossRef
20.
Heimann R, Munsell M, McBride R (2002) Mammographically detected breast cancers and the risk of axillary lymph node involvement: is it just the tumor size? Cancer J 8:276–281PubMedCrossRef
21.
Hislop TG, Worth AJ, Kan L, Rousseau E (1997) Post screen-detected breast cancer within the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 42:235–242PubMedCrossRef
22.
Jensena AR, Ewertz M, Cold S, Storm HH, Overgaard J (2003) Time trends and regional differences in registration, stage distribution, surgical management and survival of breast cancer in Denmark. Eur J Cancer 39:1783–1793PubMedCrossRef
23.
Klemi PJ, Parvinen I, Pylkkanen L, Kauhava L, Immonen-Raiha P, Rasanen O, Helenius H (2003) Significant improvement in breast cancer survival through population-based mammography screening. Breast 12:308–313PubMedCrossRef
24.
Klemi PJ, Toikkanen S, Rasanen O, Parvinen I, Joensuu H (1997) Mammography screening interval and the frequency of interval cancers in a population-based screening. Br J Cancer 75:762–766PubMedCrossRef
25.
Kricker A, Newman B, Gertig DM, Goumas C, Armes J, Armstrong BK (2008) Why do large breast cancers still present in a population offered screening? Int J Cancer 123:2907–2914PubMedCrossRef
26.
Lindgren A, Holmberg L, Thurfjell E (1997) The influence of mammography screening on the pathological panorama of breast cancer. APMIS 105:62–70PubMedCrossRef
27.
Maibenco D, Daoud Y, Phillips E, Saxe A (1999) Relationship between method of detection of breast cancer and stage of disease, method of treatment, and survival in women aged 40 to 49 years. Am Surg 65:1061–1066PubMed
28.
McCann J, Duffy S, Day N (2001) Predicted long-term mortality reduction associated with the second round of breast screening in East Anglia. Br J Cancer 84:423–428PubMedCrossRef
29.
Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ 147:1459–1476PubMed
30.
Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ 147:1477–1488PubMed
31.
Mook S, Van ‘tVeer L, Rutgers EJ, Ravdin PM, van de Vijver MJ, van Leeuwen FE, Visser O, Schmidt MK (2011) Independent prognostic value of screen detection in invasive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:585–597PubMedCrossRef
32.
Moss S, Waller M, Anderson TJ, Cuckle H (2005) Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures. Br J Cancer 92:955–960PubMedCrossRef
33.
Nagtegaal ID, Allgood PC, Duffy SW, Kearins O, Sullivan EO, Tappenden N, Wallis M, Lawrence G (2011) Prognosis and pathology of screen-detected carcinomas: how different are they? Cancer 117:1360–1368PubMedCrossRef
34.
Ng EH, Ng FC, Tan PH, Low SC, Chiang G, Tan KP, Seow A, Emmanuel S, Tan CH, Ho GH, Ng LT, Wilde CC (1998) Results of intermediate measures from a population-based, randomized trial of mammographic screening prevalence and detection of breast carcinoma among Asian women: the Singapore Breast Screening Project. Cancer 82:1521–1528PubMedCrossRef
35.
Norden T, Thurfjell E, Hasselgren M, Lindgren A, Norgren A, Bergstrom R, Holmberg L (1997) Mammographic screening for breast cancer. What cancers do we find? Eur J Cancer 33:624–628PubMedCrossRef
36.
Olivotto IA, Mates D, Kan L, Fung J, Samant R, Burhenne LJ (1999) Prognosis, treatment, and recurrence of breast cancer for women attending or not attending the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 54:73–81PubMedCrossRef
37.
Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, Lynge E, Duffy SW (2006) Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program. Breast J 12:338–342PubMedCrossRef
38.
Olsson A, Garne JP, Tengrup I, Zackrisson S, Manjer J (2009) Overweight in relation to tumour size and axillary lymph node involvement in postmenopausal breast cancer patients-differences between women invited to vs. not invited to mammography in a randomized screening trial. Cancer Epidemiol 33:9–15PubMedCrossRef
39.
Palka I, Kelemen G, Ormandi K, Lazar G, Nyari T, Thurzo L, Kahan Z (2008) Tumor characteristics in screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancers. Pathol Oncol Res 14:161–167PubMedCrossRef
40.
Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, Cousens L, White D, Taplin S, White E (1999) Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:2020–2028PubMedCrossRef
41.
RCRC (1997) Breast carcinoma stage in relation to time interval since last mammography: a registry-based study. Cancer 80:1432–1437CrossRef
42.
Shen Y, Yang Y, Inoue LY, Munsell MF, Miller AB, Berry DA (2005) Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1195–1203PubMedCrossRef
43.
Silverstein MJ, Gierson ED, Waisman JR, Colburn WJ, Gamagami P (1995) Predicting axillary node positivity in patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast by using a combination of T category and palpability. J Am Coll Surg 180:700–704PubMed
44.
Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen HHT (2004) The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin N Am 42:793–806PubMedCrossRef
45.
SOSSEG (2006) Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:45–51CrossRef
46.
SOSSEG (2006) Reduction in breast cancer mortality from the organised service screening with mammography: 2. Validation with alternative analytic methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:52–56CrossRef
47.
Spillane AJ, Kennedy CW, Gillett DJ, Carmalt HL, Janu NC, Rickard MT, Donnellan MJ (2001) Screen-detected breast cancer compared to symptomatic presentation: an analysis of surgical treatment and end-points of effective mammographic screening. ANZ J Surg 71:398–402PubMedCrossRef
48.
Sweeney KJ, Kell MR, Aziz NA, Prunty N, Holloway P, Kennedy M, Flanagan F, Kerin MJ (2007) The clinical and pathological differences in prevalent round screen-detected and symptomatic invasive breast cancer. Ir Med J 100:550–552PubMed
49.
Tabar L, Duffy SW, Krusemo UB (1987) Detection method, tumour size and node metastases in breast cancers diagnosed during a trial of breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 23:959–962PubMedCrossRef
50.
Thomson CS, Brewster DH, Dewar JA, Twelves CJ (2004) Improvements in survival for women with breast cancer in Scotland between 1987 and 1993: impact of earlier diagnosis and changes in treatment. Eur J Cancer 40:743–753PubMedCrossRef
51.
Vacek PM, Geller BM, Weaver DL, Foster RS Jr (2002) Increased mammography use and its impact on earlier breast cancer detection in Vermont, 1975–1999. Cancer 94:2160–2168PubMedCrossRef
52.
van Dijck J, Verbeek A, Hendriks J, Holland R, Mravunac M (1996) Mammographic screening after the age of 65 years: early outcomes in the Nijmegen programme. Br J Cancer 74:1838–1842PubMedCrossRef
53.
Weaver DL, Rosenberg RD, Barlow WE, Ichikawa L, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Geller BM, Key CR, Maygarden SJ, Ballard-Barbash R (2006) Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography. Cancer 106:732–742PubMedCrossRef
54.
Weigel S, Batzler WU, Decker T, Hense HW, Heindel W (2009) First epidemiological analysis of breast cancer incidence and tumor characteristics after implementation of population-based digital mammography screening. Rofo 181:1144–1150PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reduction in rate of node metastases with breast screening: consistency of association with tumor size
Authors
I. D. Nagtegaal
S. W. Duffy
Publication date
01-02-2013
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/s10549-012-2384-y

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013 Go to the issue

Preclinical Study

Elevated expression of podocalyxin is associated with lymphatic invasion, basal-like phenotype, and clinical outcome in axillary lymph node-negative breast cancer

Epidemiology

Given breast cancer, is fat better than thin? Impact of the estrogen receptor beta gene polymorphisms

Epidemiology

Estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor expression in normal terminal duct lobular units surrounding invasive breast cancer

Epidemiology

Interpersonal influences and attitudes about adjuvant therapy treatment decisions among non-metastatic breast cancer patients: an examination of differences by age and race/ethnicity in the BQUAL study

Epidemiology

Risk of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia post radiation treatment for breast cancer: a population-based study

Epidemiology

Adherence to adjuvant hormone therapy in low-income women with breast cancer: the role of provider–patient communication
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

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
Image Credits