Karla Kerlikowske1,2, Michael C S Bissell3, Brian L Sprague4, Diana S M Buist5, Louise M Henderson6, Janie M Lee7, Diana L Miglioretti3,5,8. 1. Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery and Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 5. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced breast cancer is an outcome used to evaluate screening effectiveness. The advanced cancer definition resulting in the best discrimination of breast cancer death has not been studied in a breast imaging population. METHODS: A total of 52 496 women aged 40-79 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium diagnosed with invasive cancer were staged using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) anatomic and prognostic pathologic systems and Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) tumor categories. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 5-year breast cancer death and the sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for 3 advanced cancer classifications: anatomic stage IIB or higher, prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage, and TMIST tumor categories were 0.826 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.817 to 0.835), 0.856 (95% CI = 0.846 to 0.866), and 0.789 (95% CI = 0.780 to 0.797), respectively. AJCC prognostic pathologic stage had statistically significantly better discrimination than AJCC anatomic stage (difference = 0.030, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.024 to 0.037) and TMIST tumor categories (difference = 0.067, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.059 to 0.075). The sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage IIB or higher, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer were 72.6%, 76.7%, and 96.1%; and 78.9%, 81.6%, and 41.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Defining advanced cancer as AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher most accurately predicts breast cancer death. Use of this definition by investigators will facilitate comparing breast cancer screening effectiveness studies.
BACKGROUND: Advanced breast cancer is an outcome used to evaluate screening effectiveness. The advanced cancer definition resulting in the best discrimination of breast cancer death has not been studied in a breast imaging population. METHODS: A total of 52 496 women aged 40-79 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium diagnosed with invasive cancer were staged using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) anatomic and prognostic pathologic systems and Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) tumor categories. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 5-year breast cancer death and the sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for 3 advanced cancer classifications: anatomic stage IIB or higher, prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage, and TMIST tumor categories were 0.826 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.817 to 0.835), 0.856 (95% CI = 0.846 to 0.866), and 0.789 (95% CI = 0.780 to 0.797), respectively. AJCC prognostic pathologic stage had statistically significantly better discrimination than AJCC anatomic stage (difference = 0.030, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.024 to 0.037) and TMIST tumor categories (difference = 0.067, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.059 to 0.075). The sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage IIB or higher, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer were 72.6%, 76.7%, and 96.1%; and 78.9%, 81.6%, and 41.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Defining advanced cancer as AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher most accurately predicts breast cancer death. Use of this definition by investigators will facilitate comparing breast cancer screening effectiveness studies.
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
Authors: Yiwey Shieh; Martin Eklund; Lisa Madlensky; Sarah D Sawyer; Carlie K Thompson; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Elad Ziv; Laura J Van't Veer; Laura J Esserman; Jeffrey A Tice Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Anna N A Tosteson; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dejana Braithwaite; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti; Ellen S O'Meara Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Weiwei Zhu; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Robert A Smith Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Garth H Rauscher; Dianne Johnson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Donella Puliti; Marco Zappa; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Elena Pierpaoli; Gianfranco Manneschi; Daniela Ambrogetti; Leonardo Ventura; Paola Mantellini Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Yu-Ru Su; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Nila Alsheik; Michael C S Bissell; Ellen S O'Meara; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 157.335
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
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Joseph Sparano; Melissa A Troester; Martin Yaffe; Elodia Cole; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Juliana M Mello; Flavia Sarvacinski; Flavia C Schaefer; Daniel S Ercolani; Nathalia R Lobato; Yasmine C Martins; Guilherme Zwetsch; Fernando P Bittelbrunn; Charles F Ferreira; Andrea P Damin Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-10-05