BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the prognostic value of tumor characteristics by type of breast cancer diagnosed in the interval between mammographic screenings with screen-detected breast cancers. METHODS: We conducted a case-case study within the cohort of women (n = 431 480) in the Ontario Breast Screening Program who were aged 50 years and older and were screened between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2002. Interval cancers, defined as breast cancers diagnosed within 24 months after a negative screening mammogram, were designated as true interval cancers (n = 288) or missed interval cancers (n = 87) if they were not identified at the time of screening but were identified in retrospect. Screen-detected breast cancers (n = 450) were selected to match interval cancers. Tumors were evaluated for stage, grade, mitotic index, histology, and expression of hormone receptors and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Both true and missed interval cancers were of higher stage and grade than matched screen-detected breast cancers. However, true interval cancers had a higher mitotic index (OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.81 to 5.42), a higher percentage of nonductal histology (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.05 to 3.59), and were more likely to be both estrogen receptor-negative (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.32 to 3.30) and progesterone receptor-negative (OR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.68 to 3.70) compared with matched screen-detected tumors. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, interval cancers were of higher stage and grade compared with screen-detected cancers. True interval cancers were more likely to have additional adverse prognostic features of estrogen and progesterone receptor negativity and nonductal morphology. The findings suggest a need for more sensitive screening modalities to detect true interval breast cancers and different approaches for early detection of fast-growing tumors.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the prognostic value of tumor characteristics by type of breast cancer diagnosed in the interval between mammographic screenings with screen-detected breast cancers. METHODS: We conducted a case-case study within the cohort of women (n = 431 480) in the Ontario Breast Screening Program who were aged 50 years and older and were screened between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2002. Interval cancers, defined as breast cancers diagnosed within 24 months after a negative screening mammogram, were designated as true interval cancers (n = 288) or missed interval cancers (n = 87) if they were not identified at the time of screening but were identified in retrospect. Screen-detected breast cancers (n = 450) were selected to match interval cancers. Tumors were evaluated for stage, grade, mitotic index, histology, and expression of hormone receptors and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Both true and missed interval cancers were of higher stage and grade than matched screen-detected breast cancers. However, true interval cancers had a higher mitotic index (OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.81 to 5.42), a higher percentage of nonductal histology (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.05 to 3.59), and were more likely to be both estrogen receptor-negative (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.32 to 3.30) and progesterone receptor-negative (OR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.68 to 3.70) compared with matched screen-detected tumors. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, interval cancers were of higher stage and grade compared with screen-detected cancers. True interval cancers were more likely to have additional adverse prognostic features of estrogen and progesterone receptor negativity and nonductal morphology. The findings suggest a need for more sensitive screening modalities to detect true interval breast cancers and different approaches for early detection of fast-growing tumors.
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: Samantha Puvanesarajah; Sarah J Nyante; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Mengjie Chen; Chiu-Kit Tse; Xuezheng Sun; Emma H Allott; Erin L Kirk; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson; Melissa A Troester Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2018-04-05
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Charlotte C Gard; Jeffrey A Tice; Elad Ziv; Steven R Cummings; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael S Simon; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Cynthia A Thomson; Roberta M Ray; F Allan Hubbell; Lawrence Lessin; Dorothy S Lane; Lew H Kuller Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Karen J Wernli; Brian L Sprague; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Claire M B Holloway; Li Jiang; Marlo Whitehead; Jennifer M Racz; Patti A Groome Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: A Caldarella; D Puliti; E Crocetti; S Bianchi; V Vezzosi; P Apicella; M Biancalani; A Giannini; C Urso; F Zolfanelli; E Paci Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-09-09 Impact factor: 4.553