Literature DB >> 20664027

A simulation model investigating the impact of tumor volume doubling time and mammographic tumor detectability on screening outcomes in women aged 40-49 years.

Stephanie L Bailey1, Bronislava M Sigal, Sylvia K Plevritis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Compared with women aged 50-69 years, the lower sensitivity of mammographic screening in women aged 40-49 years is largely attributed to the lower mammographic tumor detectability and faster tumor growth in the younger women.
METHODS: We used a Monte Carlo simulation model of breast cancer screening by age to estimate the median tumor size detectable on a mammogram and the mean tumor volume doubling time. The estimates were calculated by calibrating the predicted breast cancer incidence rates to the actual rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and the predicted distributions of screen-detected tumor sizes to the actual distributions obtained from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). The calibrated parameters were used to estimate the relative impact of lower mammographic tumor detectability vs faster tumor volume doubling time on the poorer screening outcomes in younger women compared with older women. Mammography screening outcomes included sensitivity, mean tumor size at detection, lifetime gained, and breast cancer mortality. In addition, the relationship between screening sensitivity and breast cancer mortality was investigated as a function of tumor volume doubling time, mammographic tumor detectability, and screening interval.
RESULTS: Lowered mammographic tumor detectability accounted for 79% and faster tumor volume doubling time accounted for 21% of the poorer sensitivity of mammography screening in younger women compared with older women. The relative contributions were similar when the impact of screening was evaluated in terms of mean tumor size at detection, lifetime gained, and breast cancer mortality. Screening sensitivity and breast cancer mortality reduction attributable to screening were almost linearly related when comparing annual or biennial screening with no screening. However, when comparing annual with biennial screening, the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality attributable to screening did not correspond to the greatest gain in screening sensitivity and was more strongly affected by the mammographic tumor detectability than tumor volume doubling time.
CONCLUSION: The age-specific differences in mammographic tumor detection contribute more than age-specific differences in tumor growth rates to the lowered performance of mammography screening in younger women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20664027      PMCID: PMC2923220          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  23 in total

1.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Longitudinal trends in mammographic percent density and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Christopher G Scott; Shaun D Maloney; Karthik Ghosh; Kathleen R Brandt; Tia Milanese; Michael J Carston; Thomas A Sellers
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years.

Authors:  A B Miller; T To; C J Baines; C Wall
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-09-20       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers.

Authors:  F D Gilliland; N Joste; P M Stauber; W C Hunt; R Rosenberg; G Redlich; C R Key
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  A stochastic simulation model of U.S. breast cancer mortality trends from 1975 to 2000.

Authors:  Sylvia K Plevritis; Bronislava M Sigal; Peter Salzman; Jarrett Rosenberg; Peter Glynn
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

8.  The MISCAN-Fadia continuous tumor growth model for breast cancer.

Authors:  Sita Y G L Tan; Gerrit J van Oortmarssen; Harry J de Koning; Rob Boer; J Dik F Habbema
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

9.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  M T Mandelson; N Oestreicher; P L Porter; D White; C A Finder; S H Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  12 in total

1.  Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast.

Authors:  Michael K O'Connor; Hua Li; Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska; Conor B Clancy; Richard J Vetter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Awareness of breast density and its impact on breast cancer detection and risk.

Authors:  Deborah J Rhodes; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah M Jenkins; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Effects of the conjugated equine estrogen/bazedoxifene tissue-selective estrogen complex (TSEC) on mammary gland and breast cancer in mice.

Authors:  Yan Song; Richard J Santen; Ji-ping Wang; Wei Yue
Journal:  Endocrinology       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 4.736

4.  Modeling of the growth kinetics of occult breast tumors: role in interpretation of studies of prevention and menopausal hormone therapy.

Authors:  Richard J Santen; Wei Yue; Daniel F Heitjan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Is the tide turning against breast screening?

Authors:  Karsten Jørgensen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Effects of annual vs triennial mammography interval on breast cancer incidence and mortality in ages 40-49 in Finland.

Authors:  I Parvinen; S Chiu; L Pylkkänen; P Klemi; P Immonen-Räihä; L Kauhava; N Malila; M Hakama
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Patient Delay in Accessing Breast Cancer Care in a Sub Saharan African Country: Uganda.

Authors:  Moses Galukande; Florence Mirembe; Henry Wabinga
Journal:  Br J Med Med Res       Date:  2014-05-01

8.  Correlation Factors Analysis of Breast Cancer Tumor Volume Doubling Time Measured by 3D-Ultrasound.

Authors:  Shuyin Zhang; Yan Ding; Qiaoying Zhou; Cheng Wang; Pengxi Wu; Ji Dong
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-06-27

9.  Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge in a Mammography Screening Cohort of Predominantly Hispanic Women: Does Breast Density Notification Matter?

Authors:  Jessica D Austin; Mariangela Agovino; Carmen B Rodriguez; Mary Beth Terry; Rachel C Shelton; Ying Wei; Elise Desperito; Karen M Schmitt; Rita Kukafka; Parisa Tehranifar
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.

Authors:  John D Keen; Karsten J Jørgensen
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.681

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.