Dataset Information

A case-case analysis of women with breast cancer: predictors of interval vs screen-detected cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model is a widely used risk model that predicts 5- and 10-year risk of developing invasive breast cancer for healthy women aged 35-74 years. Women with high BCSC risk may also be at elevated risk to develop interval cancers, which present symptomatically in the year following a normal screening mammogram. We examined the association between high BCSC risk (defined as the top 2.5% by age) and breast cancers presenting as interval cancers.

Methods

We conducted a case-case analysis among women with breast cancer in which we compared the mode of detection and tumor characteristics of patients in the top 2.5% BCSC risk by age with age-matched (1:2) patients in the lower 97.5% risk. We constructed logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of presenting with interval cancers, and poor prognosis tumor features, between women from the top 2.5% and bottom 97.5% of BCSC risk.

Results

Our analysis included 113 breast cancer patients in the top 2.5% of risk for their age and 226 breast cancer patients in the lower 97.5% of risk. High-risk patients were more likely to have presented with an interval cancer within one year of a normal screening, OR 6.62 (95% CI 3.28-13.4, p < 0.001). These interval cancers were also more likely to be larger, node positive, and higher stage than the screen-detected cancers.

Conclusion

Breast cancer patients in the top 2.5% of BCSC risk for their age were more likely to present with interval cancers. The BCSC model could be used to identify healthy women who may benefit from intensified screening.

SUBMITTER: Dreher N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9189918 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A case-case analysis of women with breast cancer: predictors of interval vs screen-detected cancer.

Dreher Nickolas N Matthys Madeline M Hadeler Edward E Shieh Yiwey Y Acerbi Irene I McAuley Fiona M FM Melisko Michelle M Eklund Martin M Tice Jeffrey A JA Esserman Laura J LJ Veer Laura J Van't LJV

Breast cancer research and treatment 20211129 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model is a widely used risk model that predicts 5- and 10-year risk of developing invasive breast cancer for healthy women aged 35-74 years. Women with high BCSC risk may also be at elevated risk to develop interval cancers, which present symptomatically in the year following a normal screening mammogram. We examined the association between high BCSC risk (defined as the top 2.5% by age) and breast cancers presenting as interval ca ...[more]

PMID: 34843026

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe nationwide fecal immunochemical test-based screening program has influenced surgical care for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Netherlands, although these implications have not been studied in much detail so far.ObjectiveTo compare surgical outcomes of patients diagnosed as having CRC through the fecal immunochemical test-based screening program (screen detected) and patients with non-screen-detected CRC.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a population-based comparative cohort study using the Dutch ColoRectal Audit and analyzed all Dutch hospitals performing CRC resections. Patients who underwent elective resection for CRC between January 2011 to December 2016 were included.InterventionsColorectal cancer surgery.Main outcomes and measuresPostoperative nonsurgical complications, postoperative surgical complications, postoperative 30-day or in-hospital mortality, and complicated course (postoperative complication resulting in a hospital stay >14 days and/or a reintervention and/or mortality). A risk-stratified comparison was made for different postoperative outcomes based on screening status (screen detected vs not screen detected), cancer stage (I-IV), and for cancer stage I to III also on age (aged ≤70 years and >70 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (I-II and III-IV). To determine any residual case-mix-corrected differences in outcomes between patients with screen-detected and non-screen-detected cancer, univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.ResultsIn total, 36 242 patients with colon cancer and 17 416 patients with rectal cancer were included for analysis. Compared with patients with non-screen-detected CRC, screen-detected patients were younger (mean [SD] age, 68 [5] vs 70 [11] years), more often men (3777 [60%] vs 13 506 [57%]), and had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists score (American Society of Anesthesiologists score III+: 838 [13%] vs 5529 [23%]). Patients with stage I to III colon cancer who were screen detected had a significantly lower mortality and complicated course rate compared with non-screen-detected patients. For patients with rectal cancer, only a significant difference was found in mortality rate in patients with a cancer stage IV disease, which was higher in the screen-detected group. Compared with non-screen-detected colon cancer, an independent association was found for screen-detected colon cancer on nonsurgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.91), surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.89), and complicated course (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90). Screen-detected rectal cancer had significantly higher odds on mortality.Conclusions and relevancePostoperative outcomes were significantly better for patients with colon cancer referred through the fecal immunochemical test-based screening program compared with non-screen-detected patients. These differences were not found in patients with rectal cancer. The outcomes of patients with screen-detected colon cancer were still better after an extensive case-mix correction, implying additional underlying factors favoring patients referred for surgery through the screening program.

Project description:Objectives"True" breast cancers, defined as not being visible on prior screening mammograms, are expected to be more aggressive than "missed" cancers, which are visible in retrospect. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited. We compared the risk of death from any cause for women with true, minimal signs, and missed invasive screen-detected (SDC) and interval breast cancers (IC).MethodsThis nation-wide study included 1022 SDC and 788 IC diagnosed through BreastScreen Norway during 2005-2016. Cancers were classified as true, minimal signs, or missed by five breast radiologists in a consensus-based informed review of prior screening and diagnostic images. We used multivariable Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of death from any cause associated with true, minimal signs, and missed breast cancers, adjusting for age at diagnosis, histopathologic tumour diameter and grade, and subtype. Separate models were created for SDC and IC.ResultsAmong SDC, 463 (44%) were classified as true and 242 (23%) as missed; among IC, 325 (39%) were classified as true and 235 (32%) missed. Missed SDC were associated with a similar risk of death as true SDC (HR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.49, 2.46)). Similar results were observed for missed versus true IC (HR = 1.31, 95% CI (0.77, 2.23)).ConclusionsWe did not observe a statistical difference in the risk of death for women diagnosed with true or missed SDC or IC; however, the number of cases reviewed and follow-up time limited the precision of our estimates.Key points• An informed radiological review classified screen-detected and interval cancers as true, minimal signs, or missed based on prior screening and diagnostic mammograms. • It has been hypothesised that true cancers, not visible on the prior screening examination, may be more aggressive than missed cancers. • We did not observe a statistical difference in the risk of death from any cause for women with missed versus true screen-detected or interval breast cancers.

Project description:Background and purposeWe have recently demonstrated that screen-detected invasive breast cancers had more favourable tumour characteristics than non-screen-detected. The objective of the study was to analyse differences in breast cancer treatment between screen-detected and non-screen-detected cases by age at diagnosis, with and without adjustment for tumour (T) and nodal (N) status, within a nationwide, population-based mammography screening programme utilising register data.Material and methodsData spanning 2008-2017 were collected from the National Quality Register for Breast Cancer. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for treatment disparities between screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancer.ResultsAmong 46,481 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer aged 40-74 and invited for mammography screening, significant differences in treatment were observed. Screen-detected cases showed higher likelihoods of partial mastectomy compared to mastectomy, endocrine therapy, and radiotherapy, whereas chemotherapy and antibody therapy were less likely compared to non-screen-detected cases. However, when adjusting for surgery type, screen-detected cases showed lower likelihoods of radiotherapy. Age at diagnosis significantly influenced treatment odds ratios, with interactions observed for all treatments except radiotherapy adjusted for surgery. Differences increased with age, except for endocrine therapy. Radiotherapy adjusted for surgery type showed no age-related interaction. Adjusting for T and N did not alter these patterns.InterpretationIn general, screen-detected cases received less aggressive treatment, such as mastectomy, chemotherapy, and antibody therapy, compared to non-screen-detected cases. Disparities increased with age, except for endocrine therapy and radiotherapy adjusted for surgery. Differences persisted after adjusting for T and N, suggesting that these factors cannot solely explain the results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Case-control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers. METHOD:We conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (ΔBIC). RESULTS:For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA = 2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85-2.92); all ΔBIC > 14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all ΔBIC > 6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.07). CONCLUSION:The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of interval breast cancer risk, irrespective of BMI. Therefore, there are different features of mammographic images that give clinically important information about different outcomes.

Dataset Information

A case-case analysis of women with breast cancer: predictors of interval vs screen-detected cancer.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A case-case analysis of women with breast cancer: predictors of interval vs screen-detected cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets