BACKGROUND: Controversy remains regarding the frequency of screening mammography. Women with different risks for developing breast cancer because of body mass index (BMI) may benefit from tailored recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of mammography screening interval for women who are normal weight (BMI < 25), overweight (BMI 25-29.9), or obese (BMI ≥ 30), stratified by menopausal status. DESIGN: Two cohorts selected from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Patient and mammography data were linked to pathology databases and tumor registries. PARTICIPANTS: The cohort included 4,432 women aged 40-74 with breast cancer; the false-positive analysis included a cohort of 553,343 women aged 40-74 without breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Stage, tumor size and lymph node status by BMI and screening interval (biennial vs. annual). Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy by BMI and screening interval. Analyses were stratified by menopausal status. KEY RESULTS: Premenopausal obese women undergoing biennial screening had a non-significantly increased odds of a tumor size > 20 mm relative to annual screeners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.997 to 4.30). Across all BMI categories from normal to obese, postmenopausal women with breast cancer did not present with higher stage, larger tumor size or node positive tumors if they received biennial rather than annual screening. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendations were more common among annually screened women. CONCLUSION: The only negative outcome identified for biennial vs. annual screening was a larger tumor size (> 20 mm) among obese premenopausal women. Since annual mammography does not improve stage at diagnosis compared to biennial screening and false-positive recall/biopsy rates are higher with annual screening, women and their primary care providers should weigh the harms and benefits when deciding on annual versus biennial screening.
BACKGROUND: Controversy remains regarding the frequency of screening mammography. Women with different risks for developing breast cancer because of body mass index (BMI) may benefit from tailored recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of mammography screening interval for women who are normal weight (BMI < 25), overweight (BMI 25-29.9), or obese (BMI ≥ 30), stratified by menopausal status. DESIGN: Two cohorts selected from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Patient and mammography data were linked to pathology databases and tumor registries. PARTICIPANTS: The cohort included 4,432 women aged 40-74 with breast cancer; the false-positive analysis included a cohort of 553,343 women aged 40-74 without breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Stage, tumor size and lymph node status by BMI and screening interval (biennial vs. annual). Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy by BMI and screening interval. Analyses were stratified by menopausal status. KEY RESULTS: Premenopausal obesewomen undergoing biennial screening had a non-significantly increased odds of a tumor size > 20 mm relative to annual screeners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.997 to 4.30). Across all BMI categories from normal to obese, postmenopausal women with breast cancer did not present with higher stage, larger tumor size or node positive tumors if they received biennial rather than annual screening. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendations were more common among annually screened women. CONCLUSION: The only negative outcome identified for biennial vs. annual screening was a larger tumor size (> 20 mm) among obese premenopausal women. Since annual mammography does not improve stage at diagnosis compared to biennial screening and false-positive recall/biopsy rates are higher with annual screening, women and their primary care providers should weigh the harms and benefits when deciding on annual versus biennial screening.
Authors: Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yadong Cui; Maura K Whiteman; Jodi A Flaws; Patricia Langenberg; Katherine H Tkaczuk; Trudy L Bush Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-03-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Patricia A Carney; Linn A Abraham; William E Barlow; Joseph R Egger; Jessica S Fosse; Gary R Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Carl J D'Orsi; Prashni Paliwal; Stephen H Taplin Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004-05-24
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Annette Molinaro; Imok Cha; Britt-Marie Ljung; Virginia L Ernster; Kim Stewart; Karen Chew; Dan H Moore; Fred Waldman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-11-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Lucia Mirea; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Linda Rabeneck; Derek Muradali Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elizabeth S Burnside; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Christina M Shafer; John M Hampton; Oguz Alagoz; Jennifer R Cox; Eric Mischo; Sarina B Schrager; Lee G Wilke Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Shuai Chen; Marzieh K Golmakani; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Janie M Lee; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Weiwei Zhu; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Robert A Smith Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Margarita Posso; Nadia Montero; Ivan Solà; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Stephen W Duffy; Markus Follmann; Axel Gräwingholt; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 9.075