Literature DB >> 25603785

Trends in breast biopsy pathology diagnoses among women undergoing mammography in the United States: a report from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Kimberly H Allison1, Linn A Abraham, Donald L Weaver, Anna N A Tosteson, Heidi D Nelson, Tracy Onega, Berta M Geller, Karla Kerlikowske, Patricia A Carney, Laura E Ichikawa, Diana S M Buist, Joann G Elmore.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current data on the pathologic diagnoses of breast biopsy after mammography can inform patients, clinicians, and researchers about important population trends.
METHODS: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data on 4,020,140 mammograms between 1996 and 2008 were linked to 76,567 pathology specimens. Trends in diagnoses in biopsies by time and risk factors (patient age, breast density, and family history of breast cancer) were examined for screening and diagnostic mammography (performed for a breast symptom or short-interval follow-up).
RESULTS: Of the total mammograms, 88.5% were screening and 11.5% diagnostic; 1.2% of screening and 6.8% of diagnostic mammograms were followed by biopsies. The frequency of biopsies over time was stable after screening mammograms, but increased after diagnostic mammograms. For biopsies obtained after screening, frequencies of invasive carcinoma increased over time for women ages 40-49 and 60-69, Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) increased for those ages 40-69, whereas benign diagnoses decreased for all ages. No trends in pathology diagnoses were found following diagnostic mammograms. Dense breast tissue was associated with high-risk lesions and DCIS relative to nondense breast tissue. Family history of breast cancer was associated with DCIS and invasive cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency of breast biopsy after screening mammography has not changed over time, the percentages of biopsies with DCIS and invasive cancer diagnoses have increased. Among biopsies following mammography, women with dense breasts or family history of breast cancer were more likely to have high-risk lesions or invasive cancer. These findings are relevant to breast cancer screening and diagnostic practices.
© 2015 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  atypia; breast biopsy; breast cancer diagnosis; breast pathology; ductal carcinoma in situ; false positive; mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25603785      PMCID: PMC4419038          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29199

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  17 in total

1.  Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Andrea J Cook; Diana S M Buist; Steve R Cummings; Celine Vachon; Pamela Vacek; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography.

Authors:  Donald L Weaver; Robert D Rosenberg; William E Barlow; Laura Ichikawa; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Charles R Key; Susan J Maygarden; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Diagnostic drift in the reporting of cancer incidence.

Authors:  J C Bailar
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-06-03       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk by menopausal status, postmenopausal hormone use and a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Lusine Yaghjyan; Graham A Colditz; Bernard Rosner; Rulla M Tamimi
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Ying Yang; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Mark F Munsell; Anthony B Miller; Donald A Berry
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Nico Karssemeijer; Adriana M Bluekens; David Beijerinck; Jan J Deurenberg; Matthijs Beekman; Roelant Visser; Ruben van Engen; Annemieke Bartels-Kortland; Mireille J Broeders
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Frequency and upgrade rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: 9-versus 11-gauge.

Authors:  Peter R Eby; Jennifer E Ochsner; Wendy B DeMartini; Kimberly H Allison; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 9.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes.

Authors:  Beth A Virnig; Todd M Tuttle; Tatyana Shamliyan; Robert L Kane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Long-term prognosis of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods.

Authors:  Tiina Lehtimäki; Mikael Lundin; Nina Linder; Harri Sihto; Kaija Holli; Taina Turpeenniemi-Hujanen; Vesa Kataja; Jorma Isola; Heikki Joensuu; Johan Lundin
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  13 in total

1.  ERβ expression and breast cancer risk prediction for women with atypias.

Authors:  Tina J Hieken; Jodi M Carter; John R Hawse; Tanya L Hoskin; Melanie Bois; Marlene Frost; Lynn C Hartmann; Derek C Radisky; Daniel W Visscher; Amy C Degnim
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2015-08-14

2.  Standardized measures of lobular involution and subsequent breast cancer risk among women with benign breast disease: a nested case-control study.

Authors:  Jonine D Figueroa; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Louise A Brinton; Maya M Palakal; Amy C Degnim; Derek Radisky; Lynn C Hartmann; Marlene H Frost; Melody L Stallings Mann; Daphne Papathomas; Gretchen L Gierach; Stephen M Hewitt; Maire A Duggan; Daniel Visscher; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Management of high-risk breast lesions diagnosed on core biopsies and experiences from prospective high-risk breast lesion conferences at an academic institution.

Authors:  Xiaoxian Li; Zhongliang Ma; Toncred M Styblo; Cletus A Arciero; Haibo Wang; Michael A Cohen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Phase II Single-Arm Study of Preoperative Letrozole for Estrogen Receptor-Positive Postmenopausal Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: CALGB 40903 (Alliance).

Authors:  E Shelley Hwang; Terry Hyslop; Laura H Hendrix; Stephanie Duong; Isabelle Bedrosian; Elissa Price; Abigail Caudle; Tina Hieken; Joseph Guenther; Clifford A Hudis; Eric Winer; Alan P Lyss; Diana Dickson-Witmer; Richard Hoefer; David W Ollila; Timothy Hardman; Jeffrey Marks; Yunn-Yi Chen; Gregor Krings; Laura Esserman; Nola Hylton
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Impact of Age on Risk of Recurrence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Outcomes of 2996 Women Treated with Breast-Conserving Surgery Over 30 Years.

Authors:  Patricia A Cronin; Cristina Olcese; Sujata Patil; Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 6.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  The relationship between holding back from communicating about breast concerns and anxiety in the year following breast biopsy.

Authors:  Caroline S Dorfman; Eneka Lamb; Alyssa Van Denburg; Anava A Wren; Mary Scott Soo; Kaylee Faircloth; Vicky Gandhi; Rebecca A Shelby
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2018-01-11

Review 8.  Emerging ways to treat breast cancer: will promises be met?

Authors:  Pouria Samadi; Sahar Saki; Fatemeh Karimi Dermani; Mona Pourjafar; Massoud Saidijam
Journal:  Cell Oncol (Dordr)       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 6.730

9.  Association between air pollution and mammographic breast density in the Breast Cancer Surveilance Consortium.

Authors:  Lusine Yaghjyan; Robert Arao; Cole Brokamp; Ellen S O'Meara; Brian L Sprague; Gabriela Ghita; Patrick Ryan
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Risk factors for breast cancer development by tumor characteristics among women with benign breast disease.

Authors:  Jonine D Figueroa; Gretchen L Gierach; Máire A Duggan; Shaoqi Fan; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Yihong Wang; Roni T Falk; Olivier Loudig; Mustapha Abubakar; Mindy Ginsberg; Teresa M Kimes; Kathryn Richert-Boe; Andrew G Glass; Thomas E Rohan
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.