Danielle D Durham1,2, Megan C Roberts3,4, Carly P Khan5, Linn A Abraham6, Robert A Smith7, Karla Kerlikowske8, Diana L Miglioretti6,9. 1. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. danielle_durham@med.unc.edu. 2. Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Division of Cancer Prevention, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. danielle_durham@med.unc.edu. 3. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Division of Cancer Prevention, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Prevention and Early Detection Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA. 8. Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 9. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (FHBC) are sometimes advised to initiate screening mammography when they are 10 years younger than the age at which their youngest relative was diagnosed, despite a lack of unambiguous evidence that this is an effective strategy. It is unknown how often this results in women initiating screening earlier (< 40 years) than screening guidelines recommend for average-risk women. METHODS: We examined screening initiation age by FHBC and age at diagnosis of the youngest relative using data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium on 74,838 first screening mammograms performed between 1996 and 2016. RESULTS: Of the 74,838 women included in the study, nearly 9% reported a FHBC. Approximately 16.8% of women who initiated mammography before 40 years reported a FHBC. More women with a FHBC than without initiated screening < 40 years (48% vs. 23%, respectively). Among women with a FHBC who initiated screening < 40 years, 65% were 10 years younger than the age at which their relative was diagnosed. CONCLUSION: Women with a first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer were more likely to start screening before 40 years than women reporting no FHBC, especially if their relative was diagnosed before 50 years.
PURPOSE: Women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (FHBC) are sometimes advised to initiate screening mammography when they are 10 years younger than the age at which their youngest relative was diagnosed, despite a lack of unambiguous evidence that this is an effective strategy. It is unknown how often this results in women initiating screening earlier (< 40 years) than screening guidelines recommend for average-risk women. METHODS: We examined screening initiation age by FHBC and age at diagnosis of the youngest relative using data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium on 74,838 first screening mammograms performed between 1996 and 2016. RESULTS: Of the 74,838 women included in the study, nearly 9% reported a FHBC. Approximately 16.8% of women who initiated mammography before 40 years reported a FHBC. More women with a FHBC than without initiated screening < 40 years (48% vs. 23%, respectively). Among women with a FHBC who initiated screening < 40 years, 65% were 10 years younger than the age at which their relative was diagnosed. CONCLUSION: Women with a first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer were more likely to start screening before 40 years than women reporting no FHBC, especially if their relative was diagnosed before 50 years.
Entities:
Keywords:
BCSC; Breast cancer screening; Family history of breast cancer; Mammography
Authors: S Shapiro; C R Smart; M E Costanza; D E Henson; A I Holleb; R V Hutter; B Krammer; H D Kushner; R McLelland; M Moskowitz Journal: Cancer Date: 1992-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Julie M Kapp; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta Geller; Diana S M Buist Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Thomas P Ahern; Brian L Sprague; Michael C S Bissell; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Dejana Braithwaite; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Michael A Campitelli; Anna M Chiarelli; Lucia Mirea; Lindsay Stewart; Gord Glendon; Paul Ritvo; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Bernadette Zakher; Amy Cantor; Rongwei Fu; Jessica Griffin; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Graham A Colditz; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Susan E Hankinson; Bernard Rosner Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-02-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jennifer C Melvin; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Zac Hana; Arnie D Purushotham; Sarah E Pinder; Ian Fentiman; Cheryl Gillett; Anca Mera; Lars Holmberg; Mieke Van Hemelrijck Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 4.452