Yubei Huang1, Huan Wang1, Zhangyan Lyu1, Hongji Dai1, Peifang Liu2, Ying Zhu2, Fengju Song1, Kexin Chen1. 1. Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy of Tianjin, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Molecular Epidemiology of Tianjin, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Ministry of Education, Tianjin 300060, China. 2. Department of Breast Imaging, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy of Tianjin, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Molecular Epidemiology of Tianjin, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Ministry of Education, Tianjin 300060, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate the screening performance of a low-cost high-risk screening strategy for breast cancer in low resource areas. METHODS: Based on the Multi-modality Independent Screening Trial, 6 questionnaire-based risk factors of breast cancer (age at menarche, age at menopause, age at first live birth, oral contraceptive, obesity, family history of breast cancer) were used to determine the women with high risk of breast cancer. The screening performance of clinical breast examination (CBE), breast ultrasonography (BUS), and mammography (MAM) were calculated and compared to determine the optimal screening method for these high risk women. RESULTS: A total of 94 breast cancers were detected among 31,720 asymptomatic Chinese women aged 45-65 years. Due to significantly higher detection rates (DRs) and suitable coverage of the population, high risk women were defined as those with any of 6 risk factors. Among high risk women, the DR for BUS [3.09/1,000 (33/10,694)] was similar to that for MAM [3.18/1,000 (34/10,696)], while it was significantly higher than that for the CBE [1.73/1,000 (19/10,959), P = 0.002]. Compared with MAM, BUS showed significantly higher specificity [98.64% (10,501/10,646) vs. 98.06% (10,443/10,650), P = 0.001], but no significant differences in sensitivity [68.75% (33/48) vs. 73.91% (34/46)], positive prediction values [18.54% (33/178) vs. 14.11% (34/241)], and negative prediction values [99.86% (10,501/10,516) vs. 99.89% (10,443/10,455)]. Further analyses showed no significant difference in the percentages of early stage breast cancer [53.57% (15/28) vs. 50.00% (15/30)], lymph node involvement [22.73% (5/22) vs. 28.00% (7/25)], and tumor size ≥ 2 cm [37.04% (10/27) vs. 29.03% (9/31)] between BUS and MAM. Subgroup analyses stratified by breast densities or age at enrollment showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The low-cost high-risk screening strategy based on 6 questionnaire-based risk factors was an easy-to-use method to identify women with high risk of breast cancer. Moreover, BUS and MAM had comparable screening performances among high risk women.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate the screening performance of a low-cost high-risk screening strategy for breast cancer in low resource areas. METHODS: Based on the Multi-modality Independent Screening Trial, 6 questionnaire-based risk factors of breast cancer (age at menarche, age at menopause, age at first live birth, oral contraceptive, obesity, family history of breast cancer) were used to determine the women with high risk of breast cancer. The screening performance of clinical breast examination (CBE), breast ultrasonography (BUS), and mammography (MAM) were calculated and compared to determine the optimal screening method for these high risk women. RESULTS: A total of 94 breast cancers were detected among 31,720 asymptomatic Chinese women aged 45-65 years. Due to significantly higher detection rates (DRs) and suitable coverage of the population, high risk women were defined as those with any of 6 risk factors. Among high risk women, the DR for BUS [3.09/1,000 (33/10,694)] was similar to that for MAM [3.18/1,000 (34/10,696)], while it was significantly higher than that for the CBE [1.73/1,000 (19/10,959), P = 0.002]. Compared with MAM, BUS showed significantly higher specificity [98.64% (10,501/10,646) vs. 98.06% (10,443/10,650), P = 0.001], but no significant differences in sensitivity [68.75% (33/48) vs. 73.91% (34/46)], positive prediction values [18.54% (33/178) vs. 14.11% (34/241)], and negative prediction values [99.86% (10,501/10,516) vs. 99.89% (10,443/10,455)]. Further analyses showed no significant difference in the percentages of early stage breast cancer [53.57% (15/28) vs. 50.00% (15/30)], lymph node involvement [22.73% (5/22) vs. 28.00% (7/25)], and tumor size ≥ 2 cm [37.04% (10/27) vs. 29.03% (9/31)] between BUS and MAM. Subgroup analyses stratified by breast densities or age at enrollment showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The low-cost high-risk screening strategy based on 6 questionnaire-based risk factors was an easy-to-use method to identify women with high risk of breast cancer. Moreover, BUS and MAM had comparable screening performances among high risk women.
Authors: J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Therese B Bevers; Mark Helvie; Ermelinda Bonaccio; Kristine E Calhoun; Mary B Daly; William B Farrar; Judy E Garber; Richard Gray; Caprice C Greenberg; Rachel Greenup; Nora M Hansen; Randall E Harris; Alexandra S Heerdt; Teresa Helsten; Linda Hodgkiss; Tamarya L Hoyt; John G Huff; Lisa Jacobs; Constance Dobbins Lehman; Barbara Monsees; Bethany L Niell; Catherine C Parker; Mark Pearlman; Liane Philpotts; Laura B Shepardson; Mary Lou Smith; Matthew Stein; Lusine Tumyan; Cheryl Williams; Mary Anne Bergman; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Kevin C Oeffinger; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Ruth Etzioni; Abbe Herzig; James S Michaelson; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Samuel J LaMonte; Andrew M D Wolf; Carol DeSantis; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Kimberly Andrews; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Robert A Smith; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hatef Darabi; Kamila Czene; Wanting Zhao; Jianjun Liu; Per Hall; Keith Humphreys Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Matthew E Mealiffe; Renee P Stokowski; Brian K Rhees; Ross L Prentice; Mary Pettinger; David A Hinds Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 13.506