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