Janie M Lee1, Diana S M Buist2, Nehmat Houssami2, Emily C Dowling2, Elkan F Halpern2, G Scott Gazelle2, Constance D Lehman2, Louise M Henderson2, Rebecca A Hubbard2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA (JML, CDL); Department of Radiology and Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (JML, ECD, EFH, GSG); Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA (DSMB, RAH); Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (NH); Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (LMH). jmlee58@uw.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA (JML, CDL); Department of Radiology and Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (JML, ECD, EFH, GSG); Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA (DSMB, RAH); Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (NH); Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (LMH).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Earlier detection of second breast cancers after primary breast cancer (PBC) treatment improves survival, yet mammography is less accurate in women with prior breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to examine women presenting clinically with second breast cancers after negative surveillance mammography (interval cancers), and to estimate the five-year risk of interval-invasive second cancers for women with varying risk profiles. METHODS: We evaluated a prospective cohort of 15 114 women with 47 717 surveillance mammograms diagnosed with stage 0-II unilateral PBC from 1996 through 2008 at facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We used discrete time survival models to estimate the association between odds of an interval-invasive second breast cancer and candidate predictors, including demographic, PBC, and imaging characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of second breast cancers after five years was 54.4 per 1000 women, with 325 surveillance-detected and 138 interval-invasive second breast cancers. The five-year risk of interval-invasive second cancer for women with referent category characteristics was 0.60%. For women with the most and least favorable profiles, the five-year risk ranged from 0.07% to 6.11%. Multivariable modeling identified grade II PBC (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15 to 3.31), treatment with lumpectomy without radiation (OR = 3.27, 95% CI = 1.91 to 5.62), interval PBC presentation (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.16), and heterogeneously dense breasts on mammography (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.01 to 2.36) as independent predictors of interval-invasive second breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: PBC diagnosis and treatment characteristics contribute to variation in subsequent-interval second breast cancer risk. Consideration of these factors may be useful in developing tailored post-treatment imaging surveillance plans.
BACKGROUND: Earlier detection of second breast cancers after primary breast cancer (PBC) treatment improves survival, yet mammography is less accurate in women with prior breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to examine women presenting clinically with second breast cancers after negative surveillance mammography (interval cancers), and to estimate the five-year risk of interval-invasive second cancers for women with varying risk profiles. METHODS: We evaluated a prospective cohort of 15 114 women with 47 717 surveillance mammograms diagnosed with stage 0-II unilateral PBC from 1996 through 2008 at facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We used discrete time survival models to estimate the association between odds of an interval-invasive second breast cancer and candidate predictors, including demographic, PBC, and imaging characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of second breast cancers after five years was 54.4 per 1000 women, with 325 surveillance-detected and 138 interval-invasive second breast cancers. The five-year risk of interval-invasive second cancer for women with referent category characteristics was 0.60%. For women with the most and least favorable profiles, the five-year risk ranged from 0.07% to 6.11%. Multivariable modeling identified grade II PBC (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15 to 3.31), treatment with lumpectomy without radiation (OR = 3.27, 95% CI = 1.91 to 5.62), interval PBC presentation (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.16), and heterogeneously dense breasts on mammography (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.01 to 2.36) as independent predictors of interval-invasive second breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS:PBC diagnosis and treatment characteristics contribute to variation in subsequent-interval second breast cancer risk. Consideration of these factors may be useful in developing tailored post-treatment imaging surveillance plans.
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Xianglin L Du; Charles R Key; Lois Dickie; Ronald Darling; George L Delclos; Kim Waller; Dong Zhang Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Lawrence Paszat; Rinku Sutradhar; Eva Grunfeld; Corona Gainford; Veronique Benk; Susan Bondy; Doug Coyle; Claire Holloway; Carol Sawka; Rene Shumak; Katherine Vallis; Carl van Walraven Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Timothy L Lash; Matthew P Fox; Diana S M Buist; Feifei Wei; Terry S Field; Floyd J Frost; Ann M Geiger; Virginia P Quinn; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Rebecca A Silliman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Theodora Maria Ripping; Rebecca A Hubbard; Johannes D M Otten; Gerard J den Heeten; André L M Verbeek; Mireille J M Broeders Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 7.396
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
Authors: Janie M Lee; Laura E Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Erin Bowles; Jennifer M Specht; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Kathryn P Lowry; Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Nehmat Houssami; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Susan D Brandzel; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Louise M Henderson; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Raquel F D van la Parra; Kaiping Liao; Benjamin D Smith; Wei T Yang; Jessica W T Leung; Sharon H Giordano; Henry M Kuerer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 16.681