Literature DB >> 26501844

Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.

Diana L Miglioretti1, Weiwei Zhu2, Karla Kerlikowske3, Brian L Sprague4, Tracy Onega5, Diana S M Buist2, Louise M Henderson6, Robert A Smith7.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Screening mammography intervals remain under debate in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of breast cancers with less vs more favorable prognostic characteristics in women screening annually vs biennially by age, menopausal status, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a study of a prospective cohort from 1996 to 2012 at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. A total of 15,440 women ages 40 to 85 years with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of an annual or within 2 years of a biennial screening mammogram. EXPOSURES: We updated previous analyses by using narrower intervals for defining annual (11-14 months) and biennial (23-26 months) screening. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We defined less favorable prognostic characteristics as tumors that were stage IIB or higher, size greater than 15 mm, positive nodes, and any 1 or more of these characteristics. We used log-binomial regression to model the proportion of breast cancers with less favorable characteristics following a biennial vs annual screen by 10-year age groups and by menopausal status and current postmenopausal HT use.
RESULTS: Among 15,440 women with breast cancer, most were 50 years or older (13,182 [85.4%]), white (12,063 [78.1%]), and postmenopausal (9823 [63.6%]). Among 2027 premenopausal women (13.1%), biennial screeners had higher proportions of tumors that were stage IIB or higher (relative risk [RR], 1.28 [95% CI, 1.01-1.63]; P=.04), size greater than 15 mm (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07-1.37]; P=.002), and with any less favorable prognostic characteristic (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00-1.22]; P=.047) compared with annual screeners. Among women currently taking postmenopausal HT, biennial screeners tended to have tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics compared with annual screeners; however, 95% CIs were wide, and differences were not statistically significant (for stage 2B+, RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.89-1.47], P=.29; size>15 mm, RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.98-1.31], P=.09; node positive, RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.98-1.42], P=.09; any less favorable characteristic, RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.25], P=.053). The proportions of tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics were not significantly larger for biennial vs annual screeners among postmenopausal women not taking HT (eg, any characteristic: RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.95-1.12]; P=.45), postmenopausal HT users after subdividing by type of hormone use (eg, any characteristic: estrogen+progestogen users, RR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.91-1.47]; P=.22; estrogen-only users, RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.94-1.37]; P=.18), or any 10-year age group (eg, any characteristic: ages 40-49 years, RR, .1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.14]; P=.48; ages 50-59 years, RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.94-1.12]; P=.58; ages 60-69 years, RR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.97-1.19]; P=.18; ages 70-85 years, RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.94-1.18]; P=.35). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Premenopausal women diagnosed as having breast cancer following biennial vs annual screening mammography are more likely to have tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics. Postmenopausal women not using HT who are diagnosed as having breast cancer following a biennial or annual screen have similar proportions of tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26501844      PMCID: PMC4644100          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Oncol        ISSN: 2374-2437            Impact factor:   31.777


  41 in total

1.  Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

Authors:  Laura E Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Melissa L Anderson; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; R James Brenner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

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

3.  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

Review 4.  NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis.

Authors:  Therese B Bevers; Benjamin O Anderson; Ermelinda Bonaccio; Saundra Buys; Sandra Buys; Mary B Daly; Peter J Dempsey; William B Farrar; Irving Fleming; Judy E Garber; Randall E Harris; Alexandra S Heerdt; Mark Helvie; John G Huff; Nazanin Khakpour; Seema A Khan; Helen Krontiras; Gary Lyman; Elizabeth Rafferty; Sara Shaw; Mary Lou Smith; Theodore N Tsangaris; Cheryl Williams; Thomas Yankeelov; Thomas Yaneeklov
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Practice bulletin no. 122: Breast cancer screening.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  To screen or not to screen women in their 40s for breast cancer: is personalized risk-based screening the answer?

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  John T Schousboe; Karla Kerlikowske; Andrew Loh; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Defining menopausal status in epidemiologic studies: A comparison of multiple approaches and their effects on breast cancer rates.

Authors:  Amanda I Phipps; Laura Ichikawa; Erin J A Bowles; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer.

Authors:  Carol H Lee; D David Dershaw; Daniel Kopans; Phil Evans; Barbara Monsees; Debra Monticciolo; R James Brenner; Lawrence Bassett; Wendie Berg; Stephen Feig; Edward Hendrick; Ellen Mendelson; Carl D'Orsi; Edward Sickles; Linda Warren Burhenne
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  23 in total

1.  Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

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

2.  Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Oguzhan Alagoz; Natasha K Stout; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kim Dittus; Ted A James; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Elizabeth S Burnside; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 3.  Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Nehmat Houssami; Janie M Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Collagen Alignment as a Predictor of Recurrence after Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Matthew W Conklin; Ronald E Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Lisa Van Gemert; John M Hampton; Kevin W Eliceiri; Jeremy S Bredfeldt; Yuming Liu; Nuntida Surachaicharn; Polly A Newcomb; Andreas Friedl; Patricia J Keely; Amy Trentham-Dietz
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  [S3 guideline breast cancer: update on early detection, and mammography screening].

Authors:  Ute-Susann Albert; Ingrid Schreer
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population.

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

7.  Advanced Breast Cancer Definitions by Staging System Examined in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Michael C S Bissell; Brian L Sprague; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Janie M Lee; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Breast Cancer in Jamaica: Stage, Grade and Molecular Subtype Distributions Across Age Blocks, the Implications for Screening and Treatment.

Authors:  Jason Copeland; Abimbola Oyedeji; Neggoshane Powell; Cherian J Cherian; Yoshihisa Tokumaru; Vijayashree Murthy; Kazuaki Takabe; Jessica Young
Journal:  World J Oncol       Date:  2021-07-10

9.  The P.I.N.K. Study Approach for Supporting Personalized Risk Assessment and Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Michela Franchini; Stefania Pieroni; Edgardo Montrucchio; Jacopo Nori Cucchiari; Cosimo Di Maggio; Enrico Cassano; Brunella Di Nubila; Gian Marco Giuseppetti; Alberto Nicolucci; Gianfranco Scaperrotta; Paolo Belli; Sonia Santicchia; Sabrina Molinaro
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Collagen Organization in Relation to Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Pathology and Outcomes.

Authors:  Donald L Weaver; Matthew W Conklin; Brian L Sprague; Pamela M Vacek; Sophie E Mulrow; Mark F Evans; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Nuntida Surachaicharn; Adib Keikhosravi; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 4.090

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.