Literature DB >> 19015941

Annual or biennial mammography screening for women at a higher risk with a family history of breast cancer: prognostic indicators of screen-detected cancers in New South Wales, Australia.

Deborah Randall1, Stephen Morrell, Richard Taylor, Wai Tak Hung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether offering annual mammography screening for women with the risk factor of a family history of breast cancer resulted in more favorable prognostic indicators of diagnosed cancers than the usual approach of biennial screening.
METHODS: The study involved women aged 50-69 years with a family history of breast cancer, defined as having > or = 1 first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer, who were diagnosed with a screen-detected invasive breast cancer between 1998 and 2004 in BreastScreen New South Wales (n = 590). The women were grouped according to whether they screened in an area offering annual screening to women with a family history, or were offered the standard biennial screening. The odds of having favorable tumor size, grade, and nodal status prognosis were compared between these screening groups using logistic regression. A comparison group of women without a family history, all offered biennial screening, was also evaluated based on the same area groupings to examine whether any differences were due to the area, rather than the screening interval policy.
RESULTS: Women with a family history who were offered annual screening at BreastScreen NSW were significantly more likely than those who were offered biennial screening to be diagnosed with a tumor < or = 20 mm in size (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.21-3.02), and to have a node-negative tumor (AOR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.03-2.50). There were also significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with tumors < or = 15 mm (p < 0.001) and < or = 10 mm in size (p = 0.011) in women offered annual screening. There was no significant difference in the odds of a Grade 1 tumor being detected (AOR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.87-1.81), although the direction of the effect was consistent with that seen for size and nodal status. No significant differences were found in the comparison group of women without a family history.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering annual screening for women aged 50-69 years with a family history of breast cancer significantly increased the odds of being diagnosed with a smaller, node-negative tumors. Further investigation is required to assess whether the improved prognostic indicators translate into significantly better mortality outcomes for women with a family history offered annually screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19015941     DOI: 10.1007/s10552-008-9264-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  7 in total

1.  Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Lucia Mirea; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Linda Rabeneck; Derek Muradali
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Impact of familial risk and mammography screening on prognostic indicators of breast disease among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Meghan J Walker; Lucia Mirea; Kristine Cooper; Mitra Nabavi; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Does perceived risk predict breast cancer screening use? Findings from a prospective cohort study of female relatives from the Ontario site of the breast cancer family registry.

Authors:  Meghan J Walker; Lucia Mirea; Gord Glendon; Paul Ritvo; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Weiwei Zhu; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Robert A Smith
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 31.777

5.  Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors of First Degree Relatives of Women Receiving Breast Cancer Treatment and the Affecting Factors.

Authors:  Nurcan Kırca; Ayla Tuzcu; Sebahat Gözüm
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2018-01-01

6.  Beliefs about optimal age and screening frequency predict breast screening adherence in a prospective study of female relatives from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Paul Ritvo; Sarah A Edwards; Gord Glendon; Lucia Mirea; Julia A Knight; Irene L Andrulis; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Residential area and screening venue location features associated with spatial variation in breast cancer screening invitation response rates: an observational study in Greater Sydney, Australia.

Authors:  Jahidur Rahman Khan; Suzanne Jane Carroll; Matthew Warner-Smith; David Roder; Mark Daniel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.