Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society.
ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE:Breast cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality among US women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced breast cancer morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE:To update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2003 breast cancer screening guideline for women at average risk for breast cancer. PROCESS:The ACS commissioned a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related to the screening interval. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:Screening mammography in women aged 40 to 69 years is associated with a reduction in breast cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening for women 70 years and older who are in good health. Estimates of the cumulative lifetime risk of false-positive examination results are greater if screening begins at younger ages because of the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger women. The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime risk with confidence. Analysis examining the screening interval demonstrates more favorable tumor characteristics when premenopausal women are screened annually vs biennially. Evidence does not support routine clinical breast examination as a screening method for women at average risk. RECOMMENDATIONS:The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation). Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation). Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation). Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation). Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer (qualified recommendation). The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:These updated ACS guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. These recommendations should be considered by physicians and women in discussions about breast cancer screening.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women and a leading cause of death from cancer in women in Europe. Although breast cancer incidence is on the rise worldwide, breast cancer mortality over the past 25 years has been stable or decreasing in some countries and a fall in breast cancer mortality rates in most European countries in the 1990s was reported by several studies, in contrast, in Greece have not reported these favourable trends. In Greece, the age-standardised incidence and mortality rate for breast cancer per 100.000 in 2006 was 81,8 and 21,7 and although it is lower than most other countries in Europe, the fall in breast cancer mortality that observed has not been as great as in other European countries. There is no national strategy for screening in this country. This study reports on the use of mammography among middle-aged women in rural Crete and investigates barriers to mammography screening encountered by women and their primary care physicians. METHODS: DESIGN: Semi-structured individual interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty women between 45-65 years of age, with a mean age of 54,6 years, and standard deviation 6,8 from rural areas of Crete and 28 qualified primary care physicians, with a mean age of 44,7 years and standard deviation 7,0 serving this rural population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most women identified several reasons for not using mammography. These included poor knowledge of the benefits and indications for mammography screening, fear of pain during the procedure, fear of a serious diagnosis, embarrassment, stress while anticipating the results, cost and lack of physician recommendation. Physicians identified difficulties in scheduling an appointment as one reason women did not use mammography and both women and physicians identified distance from the screening site, transportation problems and the absence of symptoms as reasons for non-use. CONCLUSION: Women are inhibited from participating in mammography screening in rural Crete. The provision of more accessible screening services may improve this. However physician recommendation is important in overcoming women's inhibitions. Primary care physicians serving rural areas need to be aware of barriers preventing women from attending mammography screening and provide women with information and advice in a sensitive way so women can make informed decisions regarding breast cancer screening.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>This systematic review is an update of evidence since the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on breast cancer screening.<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine the effectiveness of mammography screening in decreasing breast cancer mortality among average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years and 70 years or older, the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and breast self-examination, and the harms of screening.<h4>Data sources</h4>Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2008), MEDLINE (January 2001 to December 2008), reference lists, and Web of Science searches for published studies and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for screening mammography data.<h4>Study selection</h4>Randomized, controlled trials with breast cancer mortality outcomes for screening effectiveness, and studies of various designs and multiple data sources for harms.<h4>Data extraction</h4>Relevant data were abstracted, and study quality was rated by using established criteria.<h4>Data synthesis</h4>Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% for women aged 39 to 49 years (relative risk, 0.85 [95% credible interval, 0.75 to 0.96]; 8 trials). Data are lacking for women aged 70 years or older. Radiation exposure from mammography is low. Patient adverse experiences are common and transient and do not affect screening practices. Estimates of overdiagnosis vary from 1% to 10%. Younger women have more false-positive mammography results and additional imaging but fewer biopsies than older women. Trials of clinical breast examination are ongoing; trials for breast self-examination showed no reductions in mortality but increases in benign biopsy results.<h4>Limitation</h4>Studies of older women, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging are lacking.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality for women aged 39 to 69 years; data are insufficient for older women. False-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common. No benefit has been shown for clinical breast examination or breast self-examination.
Project description:Importance:Whole-breast ultrasonography has been advocated to supplement screening mammography to improve outcomes in women with dense breasts. Objective:To determine the performance of screening mammography plus screening ultrasonography compared with screening mammography alone in community practice. Design, Setting, and Participants:Observational cohort study. Two Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected data on screening mammography with vs without same-day breast ultrasonography from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2013. The dates of analysis were March 2014 to December 2018. A total of 6081 screening mammography plus same-day screening ultrasonography examinations in 3386 women were propensity score matched 1:5 to 30 062 screening mammograms without screening ultrasonography in 15 176 women from a sample of 113 293 mammograms. Exclusion criteria included a personal history of breast cancer and self-reported breast symptoms. Exposures:Screening mammography with vs without screening ultrasonography. Main Outcomes and Measures:Cancer detection rate and rates of interval cancer, false-positive biopsy recommendation, short-interval follow-up, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation were estimated and compared using log binomial regression. Results:Screening mammography with vs without ultrasonography examinations was performed more often in women with dense breasts (74.3% [n = 4317 of 5810] vs 35.9% [n = 39 928 of 111 306] in the overall sample), in women who were younger than 50 years (49.7% [n = 3022 of 6081] vs 31.7% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]), and in women with a family history of breast cancer (42.9% [n = 2595 of 6055] vs 15.0% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]). While 21.4% (n = 1154 of 5392) of screening ultrasonography examinations were performed in women with high or very high (≥2.50%) Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk scores, 53.6% (n = 2889 of 5392) had low or average (<1.67%) risk. Comparing mammography plus ultrasonography with mammography alone, the cancer detection rate was similar at 5.4 vs 5.5 per 1000 screens (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.68), as were interval cancer rates at 1.5 vs 1.9 per 1000 screens (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.33-1.37). The false-positive biopsy rates were significantly higher at 52.0 vs 22.2 per 1000 screens (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.93-2.58), as was short-interval follow-up at 3.9% vs 1.1% (RR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.60-3.70). The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was significantly lower at 9.5% vs 21.4% (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71). Conclusions and Relevance:In a relatively young population of women at low, intermediate, and high breast cancer risk, these results suggest that the benefits of supplemental ultrasonography screening may not outweigh associated harms.
Project description:False-positive mammography results are common. Biennial screening may decrease the cumulative probability of false-positive results across many years of repeated screening but could also delay cancer diagnosis.To compare the cumulative probability of false-positive results and the stage distribution of incident breast cancer after 10 years of annual or biennial screening mammography.Prospective cohort study.7 mammography registries in the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.169,456 women who underwent first screening mammography at age 40 to 59 years between 1994 and 2006 and 4492 women with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2006.False-positive recalls and biopsy recommendations stage distribution of incident breast cancer.False-positive recall probability was 16.3% at first and 9.6% at subsequent mammography. Probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 2.5% at first and 1.0% at subsequent examinations. Availability of comparison mammograms halved the odds of a false-positive recall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.56]). When screening began at age 40 years, the cumulative probability of a woman receiving at least 1 false-positive recall after 10 years was 61.3% (CI, 59.4% to 63.1%) with annual and 41.6% (CI, 40.6% to 42.5%) with biennial screening. Cumulative probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 7.0% (CI, 6.1% to 7.8%) with annual and 4.8% (CI, 4.4% to 5.2%) with biennial screening. Estimates were similar when screening began at age 50 years. A non-statistically significant increase in the proportion of late-stage cancers was observed with biennial compared with annual screening (absolute increases, 3.3 percentage points [CI, -1.1 to 7.8 percentage points] for women age 40 to 49 years and 2.3 percentage points [CI, -1.0 to 5.7 percentage points] for women age 50 to 59 years) among women with incident breast cancer.Few women underwent screening over the entire 10-year period. Radiologist characteristics influence recall rates and were unavailable. Most mammograms were film rather than digital. Incident cancer was analyzed in a small sample of women who developed cancer.After 10 years of annual screening, more than half of women will receive at least 1 false-positive recall, and 7% to 9% will receive a false-positive biopsy recommendation. Biennial screening appears to reduce the cumulative probability of false-positive results after 10 years but may be associated with a small absolute increase in the probability of late-stage cancer diagnosis.National Cancer Institute.
Project description:<h4>Importance</h4>Black women bear a disproportionate burden of breast cancer mortality in the US, in part due to inequities in the use of mammography. Population screening for breast cancer risk in primary care is a promising strategy for mitigating breast cancer disparities, but it is unknown whether this strategy would be associated with increased mammography rates in underserved women of racial and ethnic minority groups.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine whether providing individualized breast cancer risk estimates is associated with an increase in the rate of screening mammography.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>A cohort study was conducted in women receiving individualized risk estimates as part of routine primary health care at federally qualified health centers in medically underserved communities in Chicago, Illinois. The study was conducted from November 5, 2013, to December 19, 2014, with data acquisition completed on March 5, 2017; data analysis was performed from December 30, 2020, to February 2, 2021. A total of 347 women aged 25 to 69 years without a personal history of breast cancer presenting for an annual visit with their primary care clinician were enrolled.<h4>Exposures</h4>Breast cancer risk estimates were obtained with validated risk assessment tools as a standard component of the clinic check-in process. One of 4 women at average risk and all women at high risk were invited to participate in the study.<h4>Main outcomes and measures</h4>The primary outcome was the mammography rate during 18 months of usual care compared with the rate during 18 months after implementation of risk assessment.<h4>Results</h4>Of the 347 women enrolled, 188 were age-eligible for mammography and were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 50.8 [7.04] years); 70 women (37.2%) were Hispanic, 114 (60.6%) were non-Hispanic African American, and 4 (2.1%) were from other racial and ethnic groups (4 non-Hispanic White women). Ninety-eight women (52.1%) had an average risk of developing breast cancer and 90 (47.9%) were at high risk. Overall, there was a nonsignificant increase in the mammography rate, from 38.8% during usual care to 48.9% following implementation of risk assessment (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.92-2.03). In preplanned subgroup analysis, the mammography rate among women at high risk was significantly higher after vs before risk assessment (51.1% vs 36.6%; odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.10-3.23).<h4>Conclusions and relevance</h4>In this study, providing individualized breast cancer risk estimates as a component of primary health care in federally qualified health centers was associated with increased use of mammography among women of racial and ethnic minority groups who were at high risk. Implementation of this approach in underserved communities could promote equity in the use of mammography and reduce racial disparities in breast cancer mortality. This strategy warrants further investigation.
Project description:Guidelines recommend individualizing screening mammography decisions for women aged 75 years and older. However, little pragmatic guidance is available to help counsel patients.To provide an evidence-based approach for individualizing decision-making about screening mammography in older women.We searched PubMed for English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals published from January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2014, to identify risk factors for late-life breast cancer in women aged 65 years and older and to quantify the benefits and harms of screening mammography for women aged 75 years and older.Age is the major risk factor for developing and dying from breast cancer. Breast cancer risk factors that reflect hormonal exposures in the distant past, such as age at first birth or age at menarche, are less predictive of late-life breast cancer than factors indicating recent hormonal exposures such as high bone mass or obesity. Randomized trials of the benefits of screening mammography did not include women older than 74 years. Thus it is not known if screening mammography benefits older women. Observational studies favor extending screening mammography to older women who have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. Modeling studies estimate 2 fewer breast cancer deaths/1000 women who in their 70s continue biennial screening for 10 years instead of stopping screening at age 69. Potential harms of continued screening over 10 years include false-positive mammograms in approximately 200/1000 women screened and overdiagnosis (ie, finding breast cancer that would not have clinically surfaced otherwise) in approximately 13/1000 women screened. Providing information about life expectancy along with potential benefits and harms of screening may help older women's decision-making about screening mammography.For women with less than a 10-year life expectancy, recommendations to stop screening mammography should emphasize increased potential harms from screening and highlight health promotion measures likely to be beneficial over the short term. For women with a life expectancy of more than 10 years, deciding whether potential benefits of screening outweigh harms becomes a value judgment for patients, requiring a realistic understanding of screening outcomes.
Project description:Background Uncertainty exists about the appropriate use of screening mammography among older women because comorbid illnesses may diminish the benefit of screening. We examined the risk of adverse tumor characteristics and false positive rates according to screening interval, age, and comorbidity. Methods From January 1999 to December 2006, data were collected prospectively on 2993 older women with breast cancer and 137 949 older women without breast cancer who underwent mammography at facilities that participated in a data linkage between the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and Medicare claims. Women were aged 66 to 89 years at study entry to allow for measurement of 1 year of preexisting illnesses. We used logistic regression analyses to calculate the odds of advanced (IIb, III, IV) stage, large (>20 millimeters) tumors, and 10-year cumulative probability of false-positive mammography by screening frequency (1 vs 2 years), age, and comorbidity score. The comorbidity score was derived using the Klabunde approximation of the Charlson score. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Adverse tumor characteristics did not differ statistically significantly by comorbidity, age, or interval. Cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result was higher among annual screeners than biennial screeners irrespective of comorbidity: 48.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 46.1% to 49.9%) of annual screeners aged 66 to 74 years had a false-positive result compared with 29.0% (95% CI = 28.1% to 29.9%) of biennial screeners. Conclusion Women aged 66 to 89 years who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of a false-positive recommendation than annual screeners, regardless of comorbidity.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>Mammography, the standard method of breast cancer screening, misses many cancers, especially in dense-breasted women. We compared the performance and diagnostic yield of mammography alone versus an automated whole breast ultrasound (AWBU) plus mammography in women with dense breasts and/or at elevated risk of breast cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>AWBU screening was tested in 4,419 women having routine mammography (<h4>Trial registration</h4>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00649337). Cancers occurring during the study and subsequent 1-year follow-up were evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation for mammography alone, AWBU and mammography with AWBU were calculated.<h4>Results</h4>Breast cancer detection doubled from 23 to 46 in 6,425 studies using AWBU with mammography, resulting in an increase in diagnostic yield from 3.6 per 1,000 with mammography alone to 7.2 per 1,000 by adding AWBU. PPV for biopsy based on mammography findings was 39.0% and for AWBU 38.4%. The number of detected invasive cancers 10 mm or less in size tripled from 7 to 21 when AWBU findings were added to mammography.<h4>Conclusion</h4>AWBU resulted in significant cancer detection improvement compared with mammography alone. Additional detection and the smaller size of invasive cancers may justify this technology's expense for women with dense breasts and/or at high risk for breast cancer.
Project description:Estimates of risk for radiation-induced breast cancer from mammography screening have not considered variation in dose exposure or diagnostic work-up after abnormal screening results.To estimate distributions of radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening while considering exposure from screening and diagnostic mammography and dose variation among women.2 simulation-modeling approaches.U.S. population.Women aged 40 to 74 years.Annual or biennial digital mammography screening from age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years.Lifetime breast cancer deaths averted (benefits) and radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality (harms) per 100,000 women screened.Annual screening of 100,000 women aged 40 to 74 years was projected to induce 125 breast cancer cases (95% CI, 88 to 178) leading to 16 deaths (CI, 11 to 23), relative to 968 breast cancer deaths averted by early detection from screening. Women exposed at the 95th percentile were projected to develop 246 cases of radiation-induced breast cancer leading to 32 deaths per 100,000 women. Women with large breasts requiring extra views for complete examination (8% of population) were projected to have greater radiation-induced breast cancer risk (266 cancer cases and 35 deaths per 100,000 women) than other women (113 cancer cases and 15 deaths per 100,000 women). Biennial screening starting at age 50 years reduced risk for radiation-induced cancer 5-fold.Life-years lost from radiation-induced breast cancer could not be estimated.Radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening are affected by dose variability from screening, resultant diagnostic work-up, initiation age, and screening frequency. Women with large breasts may have a greater risk for radiation-induced breast cancer.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, National Cancer Institute.
Project description:PURPOSE:The aim of the current study was to increase the uptake of screening mammography among high-risk women who were treated for a childhood cancer with chest radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Two hundred four female survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who were treated with chest radiotherapy with 20 Gy or greater, age 25 to 50 years, and without breast imaging in the past 24 months were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive a mailed informational packet followed by a tailored telephone-delivered brief motivational interview (intervention) versus an attention control. Primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants who completed a screening mammogram by 12 months as evaluated in an intent-to-treat analysis. Stratum-adjusted relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were estimated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. Secondary outcomes included the completion of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and barriers to screening and moderating factors. RESULTS:Women in the intervention group were significantly more likely than those in the control group to report a mammogram (45 [33.1%] of 136 v 12 [17.6%] of 68; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.3). The intervention was more successful among women age 25 to 39 years (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.7) than among those age 40 to 50 years (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.2). The proportion of women who reported a breast MRI at 12 months was similar between the two groups: 16.2% (intervention) compared with 13.2% (control; RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.5). Primary barriers to completing a screening mammogram and/or breast MRI included lack of physician recommendation, deferred action by survivor, cost, and absence of symptoms. CONCLUSION:Use of mailed materials followed by telephone-delivered counseling increased mammography screening rates in survivors at high risk for breast cancer; however, this approach did not increase the rate of breast MRI. Cost of imaging and physician recommendation were important barriers that should be addressed in future studies.