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.
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 PHBCwomen. OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in PHBCwomen relative to screening of similar women without PHBC. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort of PHBCwomen, mammogram matched to non-PHBCwomen, 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-PHBCwomen. 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 PHBCwomen (499 invasive, 156 in situ) and 342 cancers (285 invasive, 57 in situ) in non-PHBCwomen. Screening accuracy and outcomes in PHBC relative to non-PHBCwomen 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 PHBCwomen 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 PHBCwomen 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-PHBCwomen.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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