Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2014

Open Access 01-02-2014 | Clinical trial

Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers

Authors: C. A. Drukker, M. K. Schmidt, E. J. T. Rutgers, F. Cardoso, K. Kerlikowske, L. J. Esserman, F. E. van Leeuwen, R. M. Pijnappel, L. Slaets, J. Bogaerts, L. J. van’t Veer

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Overdiagnosis of breast cancer, i.e. the detection of slow-growing tumors that would never have caused symptoms or death, became more prevalent with the implementation of population-based screening. Only rough estimates have been made of the proportion of patients that are overdiagnosed and identification of those patients is difficult. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate whether tumor biology can help identify patients with screen-detected tumors at such a low risk of recurrence that they are likely to be overdiagnosed. Furthermore, we wish to evaluate the impact of the transition from film-screen mammography (FSM) to the more sensitive full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the biology of the tumors detected by each screening-modality. All Dutch breast cancer patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial (EORTC-10041) accrued 2007–2011, who participated in the national screening program (biennial screening ages 50–75) were included (n = 1,165). We calculated the proportions of high-, low- and among those the ultralow-risk tumors according to the 70-gene signature for patients with screen-detected (n = 775) and interval (n = 390) cancers for FSM and FFDM. Screen-detected cancers had significantly more often a low-risk tumor biology (68 %) of which 54 % even an ultralow-risk compared to interval cancers (53 % low-, of which 45 % ultralow-risk (p = 0.001) with an OR of 2.33 (p < 0.0001; 95 % CI 1.73–3.15). FFDM detected significantly more high-risk tumors (35 %) compared to FSM (27 %) (p = 0.011). Aside from favorable clinico-pathological factors, screen-detected cancers were also more likely to have a biologically low-risk or even ultralow-risk tumor. Especially for patients with screen-detected cancers the use of tools, such as the 70-gene signature, to differentiate breast cancers by risk of recurrence may minimize overtreatment. The recent transition in screening-modalities led to an increase in the detection of biologically high-risk cancers using FFDM.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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 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
2.
go back to reference Esserman LJ, Shieh Y, Rutgers EJ, Knauer M, Retel VP, Mook S, Glas AM, Moore DH, Linn S, van Leeuwen FE, van ‘t Veer LJ (2011) Impact of mammographic screening on the detection of good and poor prognosis breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130:725–734PubMedCrossRef Esserman LJ, Shieh Y, Rutgers EJ, Knauer M, Retel VP, Mook S, Glas AM, Moore DH, Linn S, van Leeuwen FE, van ‘t Veer LJ (2011) Impact of mammographic screening on the detection of good and poor prognosis breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130:725–734PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B (2013) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA 310(8):797–798PubMedCrossRef Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B (2013) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA 310(8):797–798PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Lundgren B, Helleberg A (1982) Single oblique-view mammography for periodic screening for breast cancer in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 68:351–355PubMed Lundgren B, Helleberg A (1982) Single oblique-view mammography for periodic screening for breast cancer in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 68:351–355PubMed
5.
go back to reference Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, de Koning H, Lynge E, Zappa M, Paci E (2012) Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):42–56PubMedCrossRef Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, de Koning H, Lynge E, Zappa M, Paci E (2012) Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):42–56PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, De Koning HJ (2011) Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev 33:111–121PubMedCrossRef de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, De Koning HJ (2011) Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev 33:111–121PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Mook S, van’t Veer LJ, Rutgers EJ, Ravdin PM, van de Velde AO, 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 Mook S, van’t Veer LJ, Rutgers EJ, Ravdin PM, van de Velde AO, 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
8.
go back to reference Azim HA Jr, Michiels S, Zagouri F, Delaloge S, Filipits M, Namer M, Neven P, Symmans WF, Thompson A, Andre F, Loi S, Swanton C (2013) Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Consensus Statement. Ann Oncol 24:647–654PubMedCrossRef Azim HA Jr, Michiels S, Zagouri F, Delaloge S, Filipits M, Namer M, Neven P, Symmans WF, Thompson A, Andre F, Loi S, Swanton C (2013) Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Consensus Statement. Ann Oncol 24:647–654PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, Peterse HL, van der Kooy K, Marton MJ, Witteveen AT, Schreiber GJ, Kerkhoven RM, Roberts C, Linsley PS, Bernards R, Friend SH (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415:530–536CrossRef van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, Peterse HL, van der Kooy K, Marton MJ, Witteveen AT, Schreiber GJ, Kerkhoven RM, Roberts C, Linsley PS, Bernards R, Friend SH (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415:530–536CrossRef
10.
go back to reference van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, Schreiber GJ, Peterse JL, Roberts C, Marton MJ, Parrish M, Atsma D, Witteveen A, Glas A, Delahaye L, van der Velde T, Bartelink H, Rodenhuis S, Rutgers ET, Friend SH, Bernards R (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1999–2009PubMedCrossRef van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, Schreiber GJ, Peterse JL, Roberts C, Marton MJ, Parrish M, Atsma D, Witteveen A, Glas A, Delahaye L, van der Velde T, Bartelink H, Rodenhuis S, Rutgers ET, Friend SH, Bernards R (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1999–2009PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L, Viale G, Delorenzi M, Glas AM, d’Assignies MS, Bergh J, Lidereau R, Ellis P, Harris A, Bogaerts J, Therasse P, Floore A, Amakrane M, Piette F, Rutgers E, Sotiriou C, Cardoso F, Piccart MJ (2006) Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1183–1192PubMedCrossRef Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L, Viale G, Delorenzi M, Glas AM, d’Assignies MS, Bergh J, Lidereau R, Ellis P, Harris A, Bogaerts J, Therasse P, Floore A, Amakrane M, Piette F, Rutgers E, Sotiriou C, Cardoso F, Piccart MJ (2006) Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1183–1192PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Linn SC, Keijzer R, Wesseling J, Nuyten DS, van Krimpen C, Meijers C, de Graaf PW, Bos MM, Hart AA, Rutgers EJ, Peterse JL, Halfwerk H, de Groot R, Pronk A, Floore AN, Glas AM, van’t Veer LJ, van de Vijver MJ (2009) Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:483–495PubMedCrossRef Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Linn SC, Keijzer R, Wesseling J, Nuyten DS, van Krimpen C, Meijers C, de Graaf PW, Bos MM, Hart AA, Rutgers EJ, Peterse JL, Halfwerk H, de Groot R, Pronk A, Floore AN, Glas AM, van’t Veer LJ, van de Vijver MJ (2009) Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:483–495PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retel VP, van Harten WH, van Tinteren H, Wesseling J, Roumen RM, Knauer M, van’t Veer LJ, Sonke GS, Rutgers EJ, van de Vijver MJ, Linn SC (2013) A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 133:929–936PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retel VP, van Harten WH, van Tinteren H, Wesseling J, Roumen RM, Knauer M, van’t Veer LJ, Sonke GS, Rutgers EJ, van de Vijver MJ, Linn SC (2013) A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 133:929–936PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in the Netherlands: NETB report 2012 National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in the Netherlands: NETB report 2012
15.
go back to reference Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714PubMedCrossRef Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358PubMedCrossRef Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, Taplin SH, Sickles EA (2011) Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155:493–502PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, Taplin SH, Sickles EA (2011) Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155:493–502PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cardoso F, van’t Veer L, Rutgers E, Loi S, Mook S, Piccart-Gebhart MJ (2008) Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J Clin Oncol 26:729–735PubMedCrossRef Cardoso F, van’t Veer L, Rutgers E, Loi S, Mook S, Piccart-Gebhart MJ (2008) Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J Clin Oncol 26:729–735PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Bogaerts J, Delaloge S, van‘t Veer LJ, Rubio IT, Viale G, Thompson AM, Passalacqua R, Nitz U, Vindevoghel A, Pierga JY, Ravdin PM, Werutsky G, Cardoso F (2011) The EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial is feasible: results of the pilot phase. Eur J Cancer 47:2742–2749PubMedCrossRef Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Bogaerts J, Delaloge S, van‘t Veer LJ, Rubio IT, Viale G, Thompson AM, Passalacqua R, Nitz U, Vindevoghel A, Pierga JY, Ravdin PM, Werutsky G, Cardoso F (2011) The EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial is feasible: results of the pilot phase. Eur J Cancer 47:2742–2749PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference De Koning HJ, Fracheboud J, Boer R, Verbeek AL, Collette HJ, Hendriks JH, van Ineveld BM, de Bruyn AE, van der Maas PJ (1995) Nation-wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: support for breast-cancer mortality reduction. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening (NETB). Int J Cancer 60:777–780PubMedCrossRef De Koning HJ, Fracheboud J, Boer R, Verbeek AL, Collette HJ, Hendriks JH, van Ineveld BM, de Bruyn AE, van der Maas PJ (1995) Nation-wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: support for breast-cancer mortality reduction. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening (NETB). Int J Cancer 60:777–780PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I (2009) Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 302:1685–1692PubMedCrossRef Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I (2009) Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 302:1685–1692PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M (2013) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 108:2205–2240PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M (2013) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 108:2205–2240PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers
Authors
C. A. Drukker
M. K. Schmidt
E. J. T. Rutgers
F. Cardoso
K. Kerlikowske
L. J. Esserman
F. E. van Leeuwen
R. M. Pijnappel
L. Slaets
J. Bogaerts
L. J. van’t Veer
Publication date
01-02-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2830-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2014 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