Literature DB >> 25984843

Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.

Karla Kerlikowske, Weiwei Zhu, Anna N A Tosteson, Brian L Sprague, Jeffrey A Tice, Constance D Lehman, Diana L Miglioretti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Twenty-one states have laws requiring that women be notified if they have dense breasts and that they be advised to discuss supplemental imaging with their provider.
OBJECTIVE: To better direct discussions of supplemental imaging by determining which combinations of breast cancer risk and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories are associated with high interval cancer rates.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort.
SETTING: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) breast imaging facilities. PATIENTS: 365,426 women aged 40 to 74 years who had 831,455 digital screening mammography examinations. MEASUREMENTS: BI-RADS breast density, BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk, and interval cancer rate (invasive cancer ≤12 months after a normal mammography result) per 1000 mammography examinations. High interval cancer rate was defined as more than 1 case per 1000 examinations.
RESULTS: High interval cancer rates were observed for women with 5-year risk of 1.67% or greater and extremely dense breasts or 5-year risk of 2.50% or greater and heterogeneously dense breasts (24% of all women with dense breasts). The interval rate of advanced-stage disease was highest (>0.4 case per 1000 examinations) among women with 5-year risk of 2.50% or greater and heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts (21% of all women with dense breasts). Five-year risk was low to average (0% to 1.66%) for 51.0% of women with heterogeneously dense breasts and 52.5% with extremely dense breasts, with interval cancer rates of 0.58 to 0.63 and 0.72 to 0.89 case per 1000 examinations, respectively. LIMITATION: The benefit of supplemental imaging was not assessed.
CONCLUSION: Breast density should not be the sole criterion for deciding whether supplemental imaging is justified because not all women with dense breasts have high interval cancer rates. BCSC 5-year risk combined with BI-RADS breast density can identify women at high risk for interval cancer to inform patient-provider discussions about alternative screening strategies. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25984843      PMCID: PMC4443857          DOI: 10.7326/M14-1465

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  36 in total

1.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

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

2.  Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gary R Cutter; William E Barlow
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  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

5.  The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Christopher G Scott; Lothar Haeberle; Elad Ziv; Matthew R Jensen; Kathleen R Brandt; Dana H Whaley; Janet E Olson; Katharina Heusinger; Carolin C Hack; Sebastian M Jud; Matthias W Beckmann; Ruediger Schulz-Wendtland; Jeffrey A Tice; Aaron D Norman; Julie M Cunningham; Kristen S Purrington; Douglas F Easton; Thomas A Sellers; Karla Kerlikowske; Peter A Fasching; Fergus J Couch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  P L Porter; A Y El-Bastawissi; M T Mandelson; M G Lin; N Khalid; E A Watney; L Cousens; D White; S Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-12-01       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy.

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

View more
  89 in total

1.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

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

2.  Association of Screening and Treatment With Breast Cancer Mortality by Molecular Subtype in US Women, 2000-2012.

Authors:  Sylvia K Plevritis; Diego Munoz; Allison W Kurian; Natasha K Stout; Oguzhan Alagoz; Aimee M Near; Sandra J Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Xuelin Huang; Clyde B Schechter; Brian L Sprague; Juhee Song; Harry J de Koning; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Ronald Gangnon; Young Chandler; Yisheng Li; Cong Xu; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Hui Huang; Donald A Berry; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.

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

4.  Discussions of Dense Breasts, Breast Cancer Risk, and Screening Choices in 2019.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge, and Intentions for Breast Cancer Screening in a Diverse Sample of Women Age Eligible for Mammography.

Authors:  Marimer Santiago-Rivas; Shayna Benjamin; Janna Z Andrews; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 2.037

6.  Differences between screen-detected and interval breast cancers among BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Melissa Pilewskie; Emily C Zabor; Elizabeth Gilbert; Michelle Stempel; Oriana Petruolo; Debra Mangino; Mark Robson; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Association of State Dense Breast Notification Laws With Supplemental Testing and Cancer Detection After Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Susan H Busch; Jessica R Hoag; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Pamela R Soulos; Kelly A Kyanko; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Utilization of breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging in community practice.

Authors:  Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Robert Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Louise M Henderson; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score.

Authors:  Yiwey Shieh; Donglei Hu; Lin Ma; Scott Huntsman; Charlotte C Gard; Jessica W T Leung; Jeffrey A Tice; Celine M Vachon; Steven R Cummings; Karla Kerlikowske; Elad Ziv
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 10.  Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2016-07-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.