Top

Published in:

01-03-2014 | Original Article

Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35–39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02)

Authors: D. G. Evans, S. Thomas, J. Caunt, L. Roberts, A. Howell, M. Wilson, R. Fox, D. M. Sibbering, S. Moss, M. G. Wallis, D. M. Eccles, S. Duffy, FH02 study group

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 1/2014

Abstract

Although there have been encouraging recent studies showing a potential benefit from annual mammography in women aged 40–49 years of age with an elevated breast cancer risk due to family history there is little evidence of efficacy in women aged <40 years of age. A prospective study (FH02) has been developed to assess the efficacy of mammography screening in women aged 35–39 years of age with a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥17 % who are not receiving MRI screening. Retrospective analyses from five centres with robust recall systems identified 47 breast cancers (n = 12 in situ) with an interval cancer rate of 15/47 (32 %). Invasive tumour size, lymph node status and current vital status were all significantly better than in two control groups of unscreened women (including those with a family history) recruited to the POSH study. Further evaluation of the prospective arm of FH02 is required to assess the potential added value of digital mammography and the cancer incidence rates in moderate and high risk women in order to inform cost effectiveness analyses.

Available only for authorised users

McIntosh A, Shaw C, Evans G, et al (2006) Clinical guidelines and evidence review for the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer, National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care/University of Sheffield, London. NICE guideline CG041. www.nice.org.uk

Mackay J, Rogers C, Fielder H et al (2001) Development of a protocol for evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women under 50 with a family history of breast cancer. J Epidemiol Biostat 6:365–369PubMedCrossRef

FH01 management committee, steering committee and collaborators (2006) The challenge of evaluating annual mammography screening for young women with a family history of breast cancer. J Med Screen 13:177–182

FH01 collaborative teams (2010) Mammographic surveillance in women younger than 50 years who have a family history of breast cancer: tumour characteristics and projected effect on mortality in the prospective, single-arm, FH01 study. Lancet Oncol 11:1127–1134CrossRef

Wald NJ, Murphy P, Major P et al (1995) UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. BMJ 311:1189–1193PubMedCrossRef

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef

Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK et al (2005) Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365:1769–1778PubMedCrossRef

Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG et al (2008) Single reading with computer aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359:1675–1684PubMedCrossRef

Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L, Trial Management Group (2006) Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 368:2053–2060PubMedCrossRef

10.

Law J, Faulkner K, Young KC (2007) Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol 80(952):261–266PubMedCrossRef

11.

Maurice A, Evans DGR, Shenton A, Boggis C, Wilson M, Duffy S, Howell A (2006) The screening of women aged less than 50 years at increased risk of breast cancer by virtue of their family history. Eur J Cancer 42:1385–1390PubMedCrossRef

12.

Maurice A, Evans DG, Affen J, Greenhalgh R, Duffy SW, Howell A (2012) Surveillance of women at increased risk of breast cancer using mammography and clinical breast examination: further evidence of benefit. Int J Cancer 131:417–425PubMedCrossRef

13.

Eccles D, Gerty S, Simmonds P, Hammond V, Ennis S, Altman DG, POSH steering group (2007) Prospective study of outcomes in sporadic versus hereditary breast cancer (POSH): study protocol. BMC Cancer 7:160PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

14.

Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1994) Autosomal dominant inheritance of early onset breast cancer. Cancer 73:643–651PubMedCrossRef

15.

Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J (2004) A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 23:1111–1130PubMedCrossRef

16.

Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A et al (2003) Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet 40:807–814PubMedCrossRef

17.

Eccles DM, Evans DGR, Mackay J (2000) Guidelines for a genetic risk based approach to advising women with a family history of breast cancer. J Med Genet 37:203–209PubMedCrossRef

18.

Pharoah P, Day NE, Duffy S et al (1997) Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 71:800–809PubMedCrossRef

19.

Day NE, Walter SD (1984) Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: estimation procedures from mass screening programmes. Biometrics 43:1–13

20.

Day N, McCann J, Camilleri-Ferrante C et al (1995) Monitoring interval cancers in breast screening programmes: the east Anglian experience. Quality assurance management group of the east anglian breast screening programme. Med Screen 2:180–185

21.

Paci E, Warwick J, Falini P, Duffy SW (2004) Overdiagnosis in screening: is the increase in breast cancer incidence rates a cause for concern? J Med Screen 11:23–27PubMedCrossRef

22.

Brain K, Henderson BJ, Tyndel S, Bankhead C, Watson E, Clements A, Austoker J, PIMMS Study Management Group (2008) Predictors of breast cancer-related distress following mammography screening in younger women on a family history breast screening programme. Psychooncology 17:1180–1188PubMedCrossRef

23.

Moss S, Waller M, Anderson TJ, Cuckle H, Trial Management Group (2005) Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures. Br J Cancer. 92:955–960PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

24.

Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW et al (1997) The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer 80:2091–2099PubMedCrossRef

25.

Paci E, Duffy SW (1991) Modelling the analysis of breast cancer screening programmes: sensitivity, lead time and predictive value in the Florence District Programme (1975–1986). Int J Epidemiol 20:852–858PubMedCrossRef

26.

Norman RP, Evans DG, Easton DF, Young KC (2007) The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30–49. Eur J Health Econ 8:137–144PubMedCrossRef

27.

Taylor L, Basro S, Apffelstaedt JP, Baatjes K (2011) Time for a re-evaluation of mammography in the young? Results of an audit of mammography in women younger than 40 in a resource restricted environment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:99–106PubMedCrossRef

28.

Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Nyström L, Jonsson H (2012) Overdiagnosis in the population-based service screening programme with mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years in Sweden. J Med Screen 19:14–19PubMedCrossRef

Title: Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35–39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02)
Authors: D. G. Evans
S. Thomas
J. Caunt
L. Roberts
A. Howell
M. Wilson
R. Fox
D. M. Sibbering
S. Moss
M. G. Wallis
D. M. Eccles
S. Duffy
FH02 study group
Publication date: 01-03-2014
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Familial Cancer / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-013-9661-8

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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome: If we build it, will they come? Lessons learned from the uptake of clinical genetics services by individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC)

The MDM2 285G–309G haplotype is associated with an earlier age of tumour onset in patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome

Illness perceptions, risk perception and worry in SDH mutation carriers

Lynch Syndrome in high risk Ashkenazi Jews in Israel

Endometrial tumour BRAF mutations and MLH1 promoter methylation as predictors of germline mismatch repair gene mutation status: a literature review

Impact of breast cancer family history on tumor detection and tumor size in women newly-diagnosed with invasive breast cancer

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer