Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2018

01-09-2018 | Breast Oncology

Treatment Intensity Differences After Early-Stage Breast Cancer (ESBC) Diagnosis Depending on Participation in a Screening Program

Authors: Kenneth Elder, BEng, MSc, MPhil, BMBS, MRCS, Carolyn Nickson, BA, Grad Dip, PhD, Melinda Pattanasri, MBBS, Samuel Cooke, MD, BSc, Dorothy Machalek, BSc, MPH, PhD, Allison Rose, MBBS, FRANZCR, Arlene Mou, MBBS, FRANZCR, John Paxton Collins, MBBS, FRACS, FACS, Allan Park, MN, Richard De Boer, MBBS, FRACP, Claire Phillips, MBBS, FRANZCR, Vicki Pridmore, BA, Helen Farrugia, BAppSci HIM, G. Bruce Mann, MBBS, PhD, FRACS

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 9/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

While population mammographic screening identifies early-stage breast cancers (ESBCs; ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] and invasive disease stages 1–3A), commentaries suggest that harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment may outweigh the benefits. Apparent benefits to patients with screen-detected cancers may be due to selection bias from exclusion of interval cancers (ICs). Treatment intensity is rarely discussed, with an assumption that all ESBCs are treated similarly. We hypothesized that women diagnosed while in a screening program would receive less-intense treatment than those never or not recently screened (NRS).

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of all women aged 50–69 years managed for ESBC (invasive or DCIS) during the period 2007–2013 within a single service, comparing treatment according to screening status. Data on demographics, detection, pathology, and treatment were derived from hospital, cancer registry, and screening service records.

Results

Overall, 622 patients were active screeners (AS) at diagnosis (569 screen-detected and 53 ICs) and 169 patients were NRS. AS cancers were smaller (17 mm vs. 26 mm, p < 0.0001), less likely to involve nodes (26% vs. 48%, p < 0.0001), and lower grade. For invasive cancer, NRS patients were more likely to be recommended for mastectomies [35% vs. 16%; risk ratio(RR) 2.2, p < 0.0001], axillary dissection (43% vs. 19%; RR 2.3, p < 0.0001), adjuvant chemotherapy (65% vs. 37%; RR 1.7, p < 0.0001), and postmastectomy radiotherapy (58% vs. 39%; RR 1.5, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Participants in population screening diagnosed with ESBC receive substantially less-intense treatment than non-participants. Differences persist when potential overdiagnosis is taken into account; these differences should be factored into debates around mammographic screening.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA. 1971;215(11):1777–85.CrossRefPubMed Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA. 1971;215(11):1777–85.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Tabar L, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1(8433):829–32.CrossRefPubMed Tabar L, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1(8433):829–32.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1):CD001877. Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1):CD001877.
5.
go back to reference Marmot M, et al. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening replies to Michael Baum. BMJ. 2013;346:f873.CrossRefPubMed Marmot M, et al. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening replies to Michael Baum. BMJ. 2013;346:f873.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
go back to reference Berry DA, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784–92.CrossRefPubMed Berry DA, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784–92.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998–2005.CrossRefPubMed Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998–2005.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Puliti D, et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012; 19 Suppl 1:42–56.CrossRefPubMed Puliti D, et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012; 19 Suppl 1:42–56.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Biller-Andorno N, Juni P. Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss Medical Board. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(21):1965–7.CrossRefPubMed Biller-Andorno N, Juni P. Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss Medical Board. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(21):1965–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2587.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2587.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
go back to reference Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2012–2013. Cancer series no. 95. Cat. no. CAN 93. 2015: Canberra, ACT. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2012–2013. Cancer series no. 95. Cat. no. CAN 93. 2015: Canberra, ACT.
14.
go back to reference Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2010-2011. Cancer series no. 77. Cat. no. CAN 74. 2013: Canberra, ACT. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2010-2011. Cancer series no. 77. Cat. no. CAN 74. 2013: Canberra, ACT.
15.
go back to reference Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2009-2010. Cancer series no. 72. Cat. no. CAN 68. 2012: Canberra, ACT. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2009-2010. Cancer series no. 72. Cat. no. CAN 68. 2012: Canberra, ACT.
16.
go back to reference Barth RJ Jr, et al. Detection of breast cancer on screening mammography allows patients to be treated with less-toxic therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(1):324–9.CrossRefPubMed Barth RJ Jr, et al. Detection of breast cancer on screening mammography allows patients to be treated with less-toxic therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(1):324–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Spillane AJ, et al. Screen-detected breast cancer compared to symptomatic presentation: an analysis of surgical treatment and end-points of effective mammographic screening. ANZ J Surg. 2001;71(7):398–402.CrossRefPubMed Spillane AJ, et al. Screen-detected breast cancer compared to symptomatic presentation: an analysis of surgical treatment and end-points of effective mammographic screening. ANZ J Surg. 2001;71(7):398–402.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Ernst MF, et al. The introduction of mammographical screening has had little effect on the trend in breast-conserving surgery: a population-based study in Southeast Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37(18):2435–40.CrossRefPubMed Ernst MF, et al. The introduction of mammographical screening has had little effect on the trend in breast-conserving surgery: a population-based study in Southeast Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37(18):2435–40.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Coldman AJ, Phillips N, Speers C. A retrospective study of the effect of participation in screening mammography on the use of chemotherapy and breast conserving surgery. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(10):2185–90.CrossRefPubMed Coldman AJ, Phillips N, Speers C. A retrospective study of the effect of participation in screening mammography on the use of chemotherapy and breast conserving surgery. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(10):2185–90.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Malmgren JA, et al. Impact of mammography detection on the course of breast cancer in women aged 40–49 years. Radiology. 2012;262(3):79–806.CrossRef Malmgren JA, et al. Impact of mammography detection on the course of breast cancer in women aged 40–49 years. Radiology. 2012;262(3):79–806.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Meshkat B, et al. A comparison of clinical-pathological characteristics between symptomatic and interval breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24(3):278–82.CrossRefPubMed Meshkat B, et al. A comparison of clinical-pathological characteristics between symptomatic and interval breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24(3):278–82.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Australian Federal Department of Health and Ageing, Screening Monograph No.11/2009. BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Mammography Analysis Project. 2009. Australian Federal Department of Health and Ageing, Screening Monograph No.11/2009. BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Mammography Analysis Project. 2009.
24.
go back to reference Arndt V, et al. Quality of life over 5 years in women with breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy: a population-based study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134(12):1311–8.CrossRefPubMed Arndt V, et al. Quality of life over 5 years in women with breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy: a population-based study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134(12):1311–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Sagen A, et al. Upper limb physical function and adverse effects after breast cancer surgery: a prospective 2.5-year follow-up study and preoperative measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(5):875–81.CrossRefPubMed Sagen A, et al. Upper limb physical function and adverse effects after breast cancer surgery: a prospective 2.5-year follow-up study and preoperative measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(5):875–81.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Crane-Okada R, et al. Long-term morbidity of sentinel node biopsy versus complete axillary dissection for unilateral breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(7):1996–2005.CrossRefPubMed Crane-Okada R, et al. Long-term morbidity of sentinel node biopsy versus complete axillary dissection for unilateral breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(7):1996–2005.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Park SB, et al. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: a critical analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(6):419–37.CrossRefPubMed Park SB, et al. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: a critical analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(6):419–37.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Clark MM, et al. Physical activity in patients with advanced-stage cancer actively receiving chemotherapy. J Support Oncol. 2007;5(10):487–93.PubMed Clark MM, et al. Physical activity in patients with advanced-stage cancer actively receiving chemotherapy. J Support Oncol. 2007;5(10):487–93.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Taylor C, et al. Estimating the Risks of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: Evidence From Modern Radiation Doses to the Lungs and Heart and From Previous Randomized Trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1641–1649.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Taylor C, et al. Estimating the Risks of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: Evidence From Modern Radiation Doses to the Lungs and Heart and From Previous Randomized Trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1641–1649.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Walsh SM, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: indications and implications. Surgeon. 2014;12(6):310–5.CrossRefPubMed Walsh SM, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: indications and implications. Surgeon. 2014;12(6):310–5.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Tian Y, et al. Profile and predictors of long-term morbidity in breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3453–60.CrossRefPubMed Tian Y, et al. Profile and predictors of long-term morbidity in breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3453–60.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Giuliano AE, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252(3):426–32; discussion 432–3. Giuliano AE, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252(3):426–32; discussion 432–3.
33.
go back to reference Gatzemeier W, Mann GB. Which sentinel lymph-node (SLN) positive breast cancer patient needs an axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND): ACOSOG Z0011 results and beyond. Breast. 2013;22(3):211–6.CrossRefPubMed Gatzemeier W, Mann GB. Which sentinel lymph-node (SLN) positive breast cancer patient needs an axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND): ACOSOG Z0011 results and beyond. Breast. 2013;22(3):211–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Treatment Intensity Differences After Early-Stage Breast Cancer (ESBC) Diagnosis Depending on Participation in a Screening Program
Authors
Kenneth Elder, BEng, MSc, MPhil, BMBS, MRCS
Carolyn Nickson, BA, Grad Dip, PhD
Melinda Pattanasri, MBBS
Samuel Cooke, MD, BSc
Dorothy Machalek, BSc, MPH, PhD
Allison Rose, MBBS, FRANZCR
Arlene Mou, MBBS, FRANZCR
John Paxton Collins, MBBS, FRACS, FACS
Allan Park, MN
Richard De Boer, MBBS, FRACP
Claire Phillips, MBBS, FRANZCR
Vicki Pridmore, BA
Helen Farrugia, BAppSci HIM
G. Bruce Mann, MBBS, PhD, FRACS
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6469-7

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2018 Go to the issue