Elsebeth Lynge1, Antonio Ponti2, Ted James3, Ondřej Májek4, My von Euler-Chelpin5, Ahti Anttila6, Patricia Fitzpatrick7, Alfonso Frigerio8, Masaaki Kawai9, Astrid Scharpantgen10, Mireille Broeders11, Solveig Hofvind12, Carmen Vidal13, Maria Ederra14, Dolores Salas15, Jean-Luc Bulliard16, Mariano Tomatis2, Karla Kerlikowske17, Stephen Taplin18. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: elsebeth@sund.ku.dk. 2. CPO Piemonte, AOU San Giovanni Battista, Torino, Italy. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 4. Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 5. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Mass Screening Registry, Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland. 7. National Cancer Screening Service, Dublin, Ireland. 8. Regional Reference Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, Torino, Italy. 9. Department of Surgical Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan. 10. Programme Mammographie, Direction de la Santé, Luxembourg. 11. National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 12. The Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway. 13. Cancer and Prevention Control Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain. 14. Breast Cancer Screening Program, Instituto de Salud Pública, Navarra, Spain. 15. General Directorate Research and Public Health and Centre for Public Health Research, Valencia, Spain. 16. Lausanne University Hospital, Epalinges, Switzerland. 17. Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 18. Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is concern about detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in screening mammography. DCIS accounts for a substantial proportion of screen-detected lesions but its effect on breast cancer mortality is debated. The International Cancer Screening Network conducted a comparative analysis to determine variation in DCIS detection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected during 2004-2008 on number of screening examinations, detected breast cancers, DCIS cases and Globocan 2008 breast cancer incidence rates derived from national or regional cancer registers. We calculated screen-detection rates for breast cancers and DCIS. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 15 screening settings in 12 countries; 7,176,050 screening examinations; 29,605 breast cancers and 5324 DCIS cases. The ratio between highest and lowest breast cancer incidence was 2.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.76-3.00); 2.97 (95% CI 2.51-3.51) for detection of breast cancer; and 3.49 (95% CI 2.70-4.51) for detection of DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable international variation was found in DCIS detection. This variation could not be fully explained by variation in incidence nor in breast cancer detection rates. It suggests the potential for wide discrepancies in management of DCIS resulting in overtreatment of indolent DCIS or undertreatment of potentially curable disease. Comprehensive cancer registration is needed to monitor DCIS detection. Efforts to understand discrepancies and standardise management may improve care.
BACKGROUND: There is concern about detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in screening mammography. DCIS accounts for a substantial proportion of screen-detected lesions but its effect on breast cancer mortality is debated. The International Cancer Screening Network conducted a comparative analysis to determine variation in DCIS detection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected during 2004-2008 on number of screening examinations, detected breast cancers, DCIS cases and Globocan 2008 breast cancer incidence rates derived from national or regional cancer registers. We calculated screen-detection rates for breast cancers and DCIS. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 15 screening settings in 12 countries; 7,176,050 screening examinations; 29,605 breast cancers and 5324 DCIS cases. The ratio between highest and lowest breast cancer incidence was 2.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.76-3.00); 2.97 (95% CI 2.51-3.51) for detection of breast cancer; and 3.49 (95% CI 2.70-4.51) for detection of DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable international variation was found in DCIS detection. This variation could not be fully explained by variation in incidence nor in breast cancer detection rates. It suggests the potential for wide discrepancies in management of DCIS resulting in overtreatment of indolent DCIS or undertreatment of potentially curable disease. Comprehensive cancer registration is needed to monitor DCIS detection. Efforts to understand discrepancies and standardise management may improve care.
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Annette M Molinaro; Mona L Gauthier; Hal K Berman; Fred Waldman; James Bennington; Henry Sanchez; Cynthia Jimenez; Kim Stewart; Karen Chew; Britt-Marie Ljung; Thea D Tlsty Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Laszlo Tabar; Hsiu-Hsi Tony Chen; M F Amy Yen; Tibor Tot; Tao-Hsin Tung; Li-Sheng Chen; Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Stephen W Duffy; Robert A Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: L N van Steenbergen; A C Voogd; J A Roukema; W J Louwman; L E M Duijm; J W W Coebergh; L V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-05-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Antonio Ponti; Elsebeth Lynge; Ted James; Ondřej Májek; My von Euler-Chelpin; Ahti Anttila; Patricia Fitzpatrick; Maria Piera Mano; Masaaki Kawai; Astrid Scharpantgen; Jacques Fracheboud; Solveig Hofvind; Carmen Vidal; Nieves Ascunce; Dolores Salas; Jean-Luc Bulliard; Nereo Segnan; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen Taplin Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Andrea M Austin; Nirav S Kapadia; Gabriel A Brooks; Tracy L Onega; A Heather Eliassen; Rulla M Tamimi; Michelle Holmes; Qianfei Wang; Francine Grodstein; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Laia Domingo; Solveig Hofvind; Rebecca A Hubbard; Marta Román; David Benkeser; Maria Sala; Xavier Castells Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315