Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2014

01-06-2014 | Epidemiology

Accuracy of screening mammography in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia of the breast

Authors: Nehmat Houssami, Linn A. Abraham, Tracy Onega, Laura C. Collins, Brian L. Sprague, Deirdre A. Hill, Diana L. Miglioretti

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), or atypical hyperplasia (AH) are at increased breast cancer (BC) risk. We investigated the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in women with histology-proven LCIS, ALH, ADH, or AH history who had screening through Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-affiliated mammography facilities. Screens from two cohorts, defined by LCIS/ALH or ADH/AH history, were compared to two cohorts without such history mammogram-matched for age-group, breast density, family history, screen-year, and mammography registry. Overall 359 BCs (277 invasive BC) occurred within 1 year from screening among 52,380 screens. In the LCIS/ALH cohort [versus comparator screens] cancer incidence rates, cancer detection rates (CDR), and interval cancer rates (ICR) were significantly higher (all P < 0.001); although ICR was 4.4/1,000 screens [versus 0.9/1,000; P < 0.001] the proportion that were interval cancers did not differ between compared cohorts (P = 0.43); screening sensitivity was 76.1 % [versus 82.3 %; P = 0.43], however, specificity was significantly lower at 85.1 % [versus 90.7 %; P < 0.0001]. In the ADH/AH cohort [versus comparator] cancer rates and CDR were significantly higher (P < 0.001); although ICR was 2.6/1,000 screens [versus 0.9/1,000; P = 0.002] the proportion that were interval cancers did not differ between cohorts (P = 0.74); screening sensitivity was 81.0 % [versus 82.6 %; P = 0.74] and specificity was lower at 86.2 % [versus 90.2 %; P < 0.0001]. Mammography screening sensitivity in LCIS/ALH and ADH/AH cohorts did not significantly differ from that of matched screens, however, specificity was lower, and ICRs were higher (reflecting underlying cancer rates). Adjunct screening may be of value in these women if it reduces ICR without substantially reducing specificity.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57(2):75–89PubMedCrossRef Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57(2):75–89PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P et al (2007) A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 43(13):1905–1917PubMedCrossRef Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P et al (2007) A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 43(13):1905–1917PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Lakhani SR, Audretsch W, Cleton-Jensen AM et al (2006) The management of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Is LCIS the same as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? Eur J Cancer 42(14):2205–2211PubMedCrossRef Lakhani SR, Audretsch W, Cleton-Jensen AM et al (2006) The management of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Is LCIS the same as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? Eur J Cancer 42(14):2205–2211PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Tice JA, O’Meara ES, Weaver DL, Vachon C, Ballard-Barbash R, Kerlikowske K (2013) Benign breast disease, mammographic breast density, and the risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(14):1043–1049PubMedCrossRef Tice JA, O’Meara ES, Weaver DL, Vachon C, Ballard-Barbash R, Kerlikowske K (2013) Benign breast disease, mammographic breast density, and the risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(14):1043–1049PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ (2007) Magnitude and laterality of breast cancer risk according to histologic type of atypical hyperplasia: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer 109(2):180–187PubMedCrossRef Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ (2007) Magnitude and laterality of breast cancer risk according to histologic type of atypical hyperplasia: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer 109(2):180–187PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Plummer WD Jr, Simpson JF (2003) Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study.[Erratum appears in Lancet. 2003 Jun 7; 361(9373):1994]. Lancet 361(9352):125–129PubMedCrossRef Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Plummer WD Jr, Simpson JF (2003) Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study.[Erratum appears in Lancet. 2003 Jun 7; 361(9373):1994]. Lancet 361(9352):125–129PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Page DL, Kidd TE Jr, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Rogers LW (1991) Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol 22(12):1232–1239PubMedCrossRef Page DL, Kidd TE Jr, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Rogers LW (1991) Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol 22(12):1232–1239PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dupont WD, Page DL (1985) Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 312(3):146–151PubMedCrossRef Dupont WD, Page DL (1985) Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 312(3):146–151PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Dupont WD, Page DL (1989) Relative risk of breast cancer varies with time since diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 20(8):723–725PubMedCrossRef Dupont WD, Page DL (1989) Relative risk of breast cancer varies with time since diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 20(8):723–725PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sung JS, Malak SF, Bajaj P, Alis R, Dershaw DD, Morris EA (2011) Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology 261(2):414–420PubMedCrossRef Sung JS, Malak SF, Bajaj P, Alis R, Dershaw DD, Morris EA (2011) Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology 261(2):414–420PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Friedlander LC, Roth SO, Gavenonis SC (2011) Results of MR imaging screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology 261(2):421–427PubMedCrossRef Friedlander LC, Roth SO, Gavenonis SC (2011) Results of MR imaging screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology 261(2):421–427PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, Morris E, Montgomery LL (2007) Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol 14(3):1051–1057PubMedCrossRef Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, Morris E, Montgomery LL (2007) Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol 14(3):1051–1057PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC et al (1997) Breast cancer surveillance consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169(4):1001–1008PubMedCrossRef Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC et al (1997) Breast cancer surveillance consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169(4):1001–1008PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, Ambrogetti D (2007) Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer 109(3):487–495PubMedCrossRef Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, Ambrogetti D (2007) Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer 109(3):487–495PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L et al (2005) Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 234(2):363–373PubMedCrossRef Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L et al (2005) Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 234(2):363–373PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA et al (2006) Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 241(1):55–66PubMedCrossRef Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA et al (2006) Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 241(1):55–66PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
18.
go back to reference Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E et al (2013) Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 31(23):2942–2962PubMedCrossRef Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E et al (2013) Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 31(23):2942–2962PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference King TA, Muhsen S, Patil S et al (2013) Is there a role for routine screening MRI in women with LCIS? Breast Cancer Res Treat 142(2):445–453PubMedCrossRef King TA, Muhsen S, Patil S et al (2013) Is there a role for routine screening MRI in women with LCIS? Breast Cancer Res Treat 142(2):445–453PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Taplin SH, Abraham L, Geller BM et al (2010) Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(14):1040–1051PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Taplin SH, Abraham L, Geller BM et al (2010) Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(14):1040–1051PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Accuracy of screening mammography in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia of the breast
Authors
Nehmat Houssami
Linn A. Abraham
Tracy Onega
Laura C. Collins
Brian L. Sprague
Deirdre A. Hill
Diana L. Miglioretti
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-2965-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2014 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