Literature DB >> 21343578

Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.

Nehmat Houssami1, Linn A Abraham, Diana L Miglioretti, Edward A Sickles, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana S M Buist, Berta M Geller, Hyman B Muss, Les Irwig.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are at risk of developing another breast cancer and are recommended for screening mammography. Few high-quality data exist on screening performance in PHBC women.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in PHBC women relative to screening of similar women without PHBC. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Cohort of PHBC women, mammogram matched to non-PHBC women, screened through facilities (1996-2007) affiliated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. PARTICIPANTS: There were 58,870 screening mammograms in 19,078 women with a history of early-stage (in situ or stage I-II invasive) breast cancer and 58,870 matched (breast density, age group, mammography year, and registry) screening mammograms in 55,315 non-PHBC women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mammography accuracy based on final assessment, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, and stage at diagnosis.
RESULTS: Within 1 year after screening, 655 cancers were observed in PHBC women (499 invasive, 156 in situ) and 342 cancers (285 invasive, 57 in situ) in non-PHBC women. Screening accuracy and outcomes in PHBC relative to non-PHBC women were cancer rates of 10.5 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 9.7-11.3) vs 5.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 5.2-6.4), cancer detection rate of 6.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 6.2-7.5) vs 4.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.9-5.0), interval cancer rate of 3.6 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.2-4.1) vs 1.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 1.1-1.7), sensitivity 65.4% (95% CI, 61.5%-69.0%) vs 76.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-80.7%), specificity 98.3% (95% CI, 98.2%-98.4%) vs 99.0% (95% CI, 98.9%-99.1%), abnormal mammogram results in 2.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-2.5%) vs 1.4% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.5%) (all comparisons P < .001). Screening sensitivity in PHBC women was higher for detection of in situ cancer (78.7%; 95% CI, 71.4%-84.5%) than invasive cancer (61.1%; 95% CI, 56.6%-65.4%), P < .001; lower in the initial 5 years (60.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-65.5%) than after 5 years from first cancer (70.8%; 95% CI, 65.4%-75.6%), P = .006; and was similar for detection of ipsilateral cancer (66.3%; 95% CI, 60.3%-71.8%) and contralateral cancer (66.1%; 95% CI, 60.9%-70.9%), P = .96. Screen-detected and interval cancers in women with and without PHBC were predominantly early stage.
CONCLUSION: Mammography screening in PHBC women detects early-stage second breast cancers but has lower sensitivity and higher interval cancer rate, despite more evaluation and higher underlying cancer rate, relative to that in non-PHBC women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21343578      PMCID: PMC3799940          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  24 in total

1.  Using lifetime risk estimates to recommend magnetic resonance imaging screening for breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Rinaa S Punglia; Michael J Hassett
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-08-09       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Clinical practice. Follow-up of patients with early breast cancer.

Authors:  Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-06-14       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Mammographic surveillance in women with a personal history of breast cancer: how accurate? How effective?

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2010-06-12       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting.

Authors:  James L Khatcheressian; Antonio C Wolff; Thomas J Smith; Eva Grunfeld; Hyman B Muss; Victor G Vogel; Francine Halberg; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-10-10       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Diagnosis of second breast cancer events after initial diagnosis of early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Linn A Abraham; William E Barlow; Arun Krishnaraj; Regan C Holdridge; Edward A Sickles; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Early detection of second breast cancers improves prognosis in breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  N Houssami; S Ciatto; F Martinelli; R Bonardi; S W Duffy
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Prognostic impact of the early detection of metachronous contralateral breast cancer.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Guido Miccinesi; Marco Zappa; Zappa Marco; Miccinesi Guido
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  W L Lu; L Jansen; W J Post; J Bonnema; J C Van de Velde; G H De Bock
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Mammographic detection of recurrent cancer in the irradiated breast.

Authors:  P C Stomper; A Recht; A L Berenberg; M S Jochelson; J R Harris
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 10.  Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  D A Montgomery; K Krupa; T G Cooke
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-11-13       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  41 in total

1.  Single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT) with technetium-99m sestamibi in the diagnosis of small breast cancer and axillary lymph node involvement.

Authors:  Alessandro DeCesare; Alessandro de Cesare; Giuseppe De Vincentis; De Vincentis Giuseppe; Stefano Gervasi; Gervasi Stefano; Giacomo Crescentini; Crescentini Giacomo; Enrico Fiori; Fiori Enrico; Marco Bonomi; Bonomi Marco; Alessandro Crocetti; Alessandro Crocetti; Antonio V Sterpetti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Frequent antibiotic use and second breast cancer events.

Authors:  Heidi S Wirtz; Diana S M Buist; Julie R Gralow; William E Barlow; Shelly Gray; Jessica Chubak; Onchee Yu; Erin J A Bowles; Monica Fujii; Denise M Boudreau
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Five-year risk of interval-invasive second breast cancer.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Nehmat Houssami; Emily C Dowling; Elkan F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Breast magnetic resonance imaging: are those who need it getting it?

Authors:  S Tan; J David; L Lalonde; M El Khoury; M Labelle; R Younan; E Patocskai; J Richard; I Trop
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 5.  Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Nehmat Houssami; Janie M Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Utility of Clinical Breast Examinations in Detecting Local-Regional Breast Events After Breast-Conservation in Women with a Personal History of High-Risk Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Heather B Neuman; Jessica R Schumacher; Amanda B Francescatti; Taiwo Adesoye; Stephen B Edge; Elizabeth S Burnside; David J Vanness; Menggang Yu; Yajuan Si; Dan McKellar; David P Winchester; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Long-term surveillance mammography and mortality in older women with a history of early stage invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Jaclyn L F Bosco; Rebecca A Silliman; Heather Taffet Gold; Terry Field; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Virginia P Quinn; Marianne Prout; Timothy L Lash
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Risk of asynchronous contralateral breast cancer: multiple approaches for a complex issue.

Authors:  Tomi F Akinyemiju
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2013-05

10.  Factors associated with long-term adherence to annual surveillance mammography among breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Heidi S Wirtz; Denise M Boudreau; Julie R Gralow; William E Barlow; Shelly Gray; Erin J A Bowles; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.