Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2017

01-11-2017 | Epidemiology

Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer

Authors: Jacky D. Luiten, Adri C. Voogd, Ernest J. T. Luiten, Lucien E. M. Duijm

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

In a biennial screening mammography programme, we analysed the trends in incidence of screen-detected DCIS and invasive breast cancers in the era of screen-film mammography (SFM) screening, the period of the transition to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) screening and the period of FFDM screening. We also investigated a possible association between the incidence and grading of screen-detected DCIS and invasive breast cancer.

Methods

In the southern part of the Netherlands, FFDM screening gradually replaced SFM screening between May 2009 and April 2010. We included a consecutive series of 484, 422 screens obtained between July 2005 and July 2015 and divided these screens into three groups; SFM-only cohort, transition cohort and FFDM-only cohort.

Results

A total of 3059 referred women were diagnosed with DCIS (n = 623) or invasive breast cancer (n = 2436). The majority of DCIS were high-grade (48.2%), whereas the majority of the invasive breast cancers were low-grade (45.4%) or intermediate-grade (41.6%). The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screened women showed the same distribution by grade in both groups. The transition to FFDM was characterised by an increased overall detection rate of invasive cancers.

Conclusions

Screening mammography detects mostly high-grade DCIS and low- or intermediate-grade invasive cancers. The grade distribution as well as the CDR in the years after the introduction of FFDM remained stable compared to the era of SFM screening. By diagnosing and treating high-grade DCIS, which otherwise may develop into high-grade invasive carcinoma, our findings provide new evidence for the beneficial value of screening mammography programmes.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jing HYY, Wernick MN, Yarusso LM, Nishikawa RM (2012) A comparison study of image features between FFDM and film mammogram images. Med Phys 39(7):8 Jing HYY, Wernick MN, Yarusso LM, Nishikawa RM (2012) A comparison study of image features between FFDM and film mammogram images. Med Phys 39(7):8
2.
go back to reference Nederend J, Duijm LE, Voogd AC, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Louwman MW (2012) Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study. Breast Cancer Res 14(1):R10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nederend J, Duijm LE, Voogd AC, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Louwman MW (2012) Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study. Breast Cancer Res 14(1):R10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference van Steenbergen LN, Voogd AC, Roukema JA, Louwman WJ, Duijm LE, Coebergh JW, van de Poll-Franse LV (2009) Screening caused rising incidence rates of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 115(1):181–183CrossRefPubMed van Steenbergen LN, Voogd AC, Roukema JA, Louwman WJ, Duijm LE, Coebergh JW, van de Poll-Franse LV (2009) Screening caused rising incidence rates of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 115(1):181–183CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, Yankaskas BC, Rosenberg R, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K et al (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(20):1546–1554CrossRefPubMed Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, Yankaskas BC, Rosenberg R, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K et al (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(20):1546–1554CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Yen MFTL, Vitak B, Smith RA, Chen HH, Duffy SW (2003) Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 39(12):8CrossRef Yen MFTL, Vitak B, Smith RA, Chen HH, Duffy SW (2003) Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 39(12):8CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabar L, Vitak B, Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Myles JP, Warwick J (2005) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 7(6):258–265CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabar L, Vitak B, Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Myles JP, Warwick J (2005) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 7(6):258–265CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Seigneurin A, Labarere J, Francois O, Exbrayat C, Dupouy M, Filippi M, Colonna M (2016) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with breast cancer mammography screening: a simulation study with calibration to population-based data. Breast 28:60–66CrossRefPubMed Seigneurin A, Labarere J, Francois O, Exbrayat C, Dupouy M, Filippi M, Colonna M (2016) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with breast cancer mammography screening: a simulation study with calibration to population-based data. Breast 28:60–66CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, van Beek M, de Koning HJ (2004) Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer 91(10):1795–1799CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, van Beek M, de Koning HJ (2004) Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer 91(10):1795–1799CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Setz-Pels W, Duijm LE, Coebergh JW, Rutten M, Nederend J, Voogd AC (2013) Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 109(8):2044–2050CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Setz-Pels W, Duijm LE, Coebergh JW, Rutten M, Nederend J, Voogd AC (2013) Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 109(8):2044–2050CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Forsyth S, Bundred NJ, Forbes JF, Bishop H, Fentiman IS, George WD (2011) Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol 12(1):21–29CrossRefPubMed Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Forsyth S, Bundred NJ, Forbes JF, Bishop H, Fentiman IS, George WD (2011) Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol 12(1):21–29CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ellis IO (2010) Intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast: morphology, associated risk and molecular biology. Mod Pathol 23(Suppl 2):S1–S7CrossRefPubMed Ellis IO (2010) Intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast: morphology, associated risk and molecular biology. Mod Pathol 23(Suppl 2):S1–S7CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D, Offman J, Parmar D, Jenkins J, Collins B, Robson T, Scorfield S, Green K et al (2016) Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 17(1):109–114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D, Offman J, Parmar D, Jenkins J, Collins B, Robson T, Scorfield S, Green K et al (2016) Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 17(1):109–114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, Houssami N (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol 189(4):860–866CrossRef Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, Houssami N (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol 189(4):860–866CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, van Engen R, Bartels-Kortland A, Broeders MJ (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253(2):353–358CrossRefPubMed Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, van Engen R, Bartels-Kortland A, Broeders MJ (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253(2):353–358CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, Verbeek AL, de Koning HJ, Holland R (2005) Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(10):748–754CrossRefPubMed Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, Verbeek AL, de Koning HJ, Holland R (2005) Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(10):748–754CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Klompenhouwer EG, Voogd AC, den Heeten GJ, Strobbe LJ, de Haan AF, Wauters CA, Broeders MJ, Duijm LE (2015) Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 51(3):391–399CrossRefPubMed Klompenhouwer EG, Voogd AC, den Heeten GJ, Strobbe LJ, de Haan AF, Wauters CA, Broeders MJ, Duijm LE (2015) Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 51(3):391–399CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Klompenhouwer EG, Voogd AC, den Heeten GJ, Strobbe LJ, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Broeders MJ, Duijm LE (2015) Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome. Eur Radiol 25(10):2821–2829CrossRefPubMed Klompenhouwer EG, Voogd AC, den Heeten GJ, Strobbe LJ, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Broeders MJ, Duijm LE (2015) Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome. Eur Radiol 25(10):2821–2829CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference van Breest Smallenburg V, Duijm LE, den Heeten GJ, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, Plaisier ML, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Broeders MJ (2012) Two-view versus single-view mammography at subsequent screening in a region of the Dutch breast screening programme. Eur J Radiol 81(9):2189–2194CrossRef van Breest Smallenburg V, Duijm LE, den Heeten GJ, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, Plaisier ML, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Broeders MJ (2012) Two-view versus single-view mammography at subsequent screening in a region of the Dutch breast screening programme. Eur J Radiol 81(9):2189–2194CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Dowling EC, Klabunde C, Patnick J, Ballard-Barbash R (2010) Breast and cervical cancer screening programme implementation in 16 countries. J Med Screen 17(3):139–146CrossRefPubMed Dowling EC, Klabunde C, Patnick J, Ballard-Barbash R (2010) Breast and cervical cancer screening programme implementation in 16 countries. J Med Screen 17(3):139–146CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Blanks R, Ballard-Barbash R, Bobo JK, Lee NC, Wallis MG, Patnick J et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. JAMA 290(16):2129–2137CrossRefPubMed Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Blanks R, Ballard-Barbash R, Bobo JK, Lee NC, Wallis MG, Patnick J et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. JAMA 290(16):2129–2137CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer
Authors
Jacky D. Luiten
Adri C. Voogd
Ernest J. T. Luiten
Lucien E. M. Duijm
Publication date
01-11-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4412-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2017 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