Literature DB >> 23513042

Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening.

Nehmat Houssami1, Linn A Abraham, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana S M Buist, Les Irwig, Janie Lee, Diana L Miglioretti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) have increased risk of an interval cancer. We aimed to identify risk factors for second (ipsilateral or contralateral) screen-detected or interval breast cancer within 1 year of screening in PHBC women.
METHODS: Screening mammograms from women with history of early-stage breast cancer at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-affiliated facilities (1996-2008) were examined. Associations between woman-level, screen-level, and first cancer variables and the probability of a second breast cancer were modeled using multinomial logistic regression for three outcomes [screen-detected invasive breast cancer, interval invasive breast cancer, or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] relative to no second breast cancer.
RESULTS: There were 697 second breast cancers, of these 240 were interval cancers, among 67,819 screens in 20,941 women. In separate models for women with DCIS or invasive first cancer, first breast cancer surgery predicted all three second breast cancer outcomes (P < 0.001), and high ORs for second breast cancers (between 1.95 and 4.82) were estimated for breast conservation without radiation (relative to mastectomy). In women with invasive first breast cancer, additional variables predicted risk (P < 0.05) for at least one of the three outcomes: first-degree family history, dense breasts, longer time between mammograms, young age at first breast cancer, first breast cancer stage, and adjuvant systemic therapy for first breast cancer; and risk of interval invasive breast cancer was highest in women <40 years at first breast cancer (OR, 3.41; 1.34-8.70), those with extremely dense breasts (OR, 2.55; 1.4-4.67), and those treated with breast conservation without radiation (OR, 2.67; 1.53-4.65).
CONCLUSION: Although the risk of a second breast cancer is modest, our models identify risk factors for interval second breast cancer in PHBC women. IMPACT: Our findings may guide discussion and evaluations of tailored breast screening in PHBC women, and incorporating this information into clinical decision-making warrants further research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23513042      PMCID: PMC3650092          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1208-T

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  28 in total

Review 1.  Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-09-06       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Consensus conference on breast conservation.

Authors:  Gordon F Schwartz; Umberto Veronesi; Krishna B Clough; J Michael Dixon; Ian S Fentiman; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Roland Holland; Kevin S Hughes; Robert E Mansel; Richard Margolese; Ellen B Mendelson; Ivo A Olivotto; Juan P Palazzo; Lawrence J Solin
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Emily White; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Pamela M Vacek; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Patricia A Carney; Jeffrey A Tice; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention.

Authors:  B Rockhill; D Spiegelman; C Byrne; D J Hunter; G A Colditz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  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

7.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Benefit of semiannual ipsilateral mammographic surveillance following breast conservation therapy.

Authors:  Vignesh A Arasu; Bonnie N Joe; Natalya M Lvoff; Jessica W T Leung; R James Brenner; Chris I Flowers; Dan H Moore; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  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

10.  A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors.

Authors:  Jonathan Tyrer; Stephen W Duffy; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  19 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee; Constance Lehman; Ellen S O'Meara; Natasha K Stout; Louise M Henderson; Deirdre Hill; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; Sally D Herschorn; Donald L Weaver; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Anne Marie McCarthy; Steven P Poplack; Jennifer S Haas; Katrina Armstrong; Mitchell D Schnall; William E Barlow
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society.

Authors:  Kevin C Oeffinger; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Ruth Etzioni; Abbe Herzig; James S Michaelson; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Samuel J LaMonte; Andrew M D Wolf; Carol DeSantis; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Kimberly Andrews; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Robert A Smith; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening.

Authors:  Katrina E Korhonen; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 5.333

8.  Cumulative Risk Distribution for Interval Invasive Second Breast Cancers After Negative Surveillance Mammography.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Linn Abraham; Diana L Lam; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Nehmat Houssami; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography Plus Ultrasonography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women 50 Years or Younger at Diagnosis and Treated With Breast Conservation Therapy.

Authors:  Nariya Cho; Wonshik Han; Boo-Kyung Han; Min Sun Bae; Eun Sook Ko; Seok Jin Nam; Eun Young Chae; Jong Won Lee; Sung Hun Kim; Bong Joo Kang; Byung Joo Song; Eun-Kyung Kim; Hee Jung Moon; Seung Il Kim; Sun Mi Kim; Eunyoung Kang; Yunhee Choi; Hak Hee Kim; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 31.777

10.  A model for individualized risk prediction of contralateral breast cancer.

Authors:  Marzana Chowdhury; David Euhus; Tracy Onega; Swati Biswas; Pankaj K Choudhary
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 4.624

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.