Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Interval Breast Cancers Compared With Screening-Detected Breast Cancers

Saroj Niraula, Natalie Biswanger, PingZhao Hu, Pascal Lambert, Kathleen Decker, Saroj Niraula, Natalie Biswanger, PingZhao Hu, Pascal Lambert, Kathleen Decker

Abstract

Importance: Breast cancer comprises a highly heterogeneous group of diseases. Many breast cancers, particularly the more lethal ones, may not satisfy the assumptions about biology and natural history of breast cancer necessary for screening mammography to be effective.

Objectives: To compare tumor characteristics of breast cancers diagnosed within 2 years of a normal screening mammogram (interval breast cancer [IBC]) with those of screen-detected breast cancers (SBC) and to compare breast cancer-specific mortality of IBC with SBC.

Design, setting, and participants: In this registry-based cohort study, we collected data about relevant tumor- and patient-related variables on women diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2004 and June 2010 who participated in the population-based screening program in Manitoba, Canada, and those diagnosed with breast cancer outside the screening program in the province. We performed multinomial logistic regression analysis to assess tumor and patient characteristics associated with a diagnosis of IBC compared with SBC. Competing risk analysis was performed to examine risk of death by cancer detection method.

Exposures: Breast cancer diagnosis.

Main outcomes and measures: Differences in tumor characteristics and breast cancer-specific mortality.

Results: A total of 69 025 women aged 50 to 64 years had 212 screening mammograms during the study period. There were 1687 breast cancer diagnoses (705 SBC, 206 IBC, 275 were noncompliant, and 501 were detected outside the screening program), and 225 deaths (170 breast cancer-specific deaths). Interval cancers were more likely than SBC to be of high grade and estrogen receptor negative (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% CI, 3.73-10.75; P < .001; and OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.01-4.13; P < .001, respectively). After a median follow-up of 7 years, breast cancer-specific mortality was significantly higher for IBC compared with SBC cancers (hazard ratio [HR] 3.55; 95% CI, 2.01-6.28; P < .001), for a sojorn time of 2 years. Non-breast cancer mortality was similar between IBC and SBC (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.43-4.15).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, interval cancers were highly prevalent in women participating in population screening, represented a worse biology, and had a hazard for breast cancer death more than 3-fold that for SBC. Strategies beyond current mammographic screening practices are needed to reduce incidence, improve detection, and reduce deaths from these potentially lethal breast cancers.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Hu is the holder of a Manitoba Medical Services Foundation (MMSF) Allen Rouse Basic Science Career Development Research Award. No other disclosures are reported.

Figures

Figure.. Hazard of Death Over the 4-Year…
Figure.. Hazard of Death Over the 4-Year Sojourn Time
Hazard of death and 95% CIs for women with non–screening program–detected invasive cancer from 2004 to 2010, changes over the 4-year sojourn time (the solid line indicates the hazard ratio, and the shaded band shows the 95% CIs).

References

    1. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(6):CD001877. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5
    1. Niraula S. Screening mammography: sparing the emperor’s blushes. Cancer Med. 2016;5(10):3018-3020. doi:10.1002/cam4.859
    1. Defossez G, Quillet A, Ingrand P. Aggressive primary treatments with favourable 5-year survival for screen-interval breast cancers. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):393. doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4319-4
    1. Kalager M, Tamimi RM, Bretthauer M, Adami HO. Prognosis in women with interval breast cancer: population based observational cohort study. BMJ. 2012;345:e7536. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7536
    1. Cheasley D, Li N, Rowley SM, et al. . Molecular comparison of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Pathol. 2019;248(2):243-252. doi:10.1002/path.5251
    1. Grassmann F, He W, Eriksson M, Gabrielson M, Hall P, Czene K. Interval breast cancer is associated with other types of tumors. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):4648. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12652-1
    1. Ellison J, Wu X, McLaughlin C, Lake A, Firth R. Data Quality Indicators by Year and Registry. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries APPENDIX C 2006;Cancer In North America: 1999-2003 Volume One: Incidence: North American Association of Cancer Registries Inc:II-325.
    1. Robinson JR, Young TK, Roos LL, Gelskey DE. Estimating the burden of disease: comparing administrative data and self-reports. Med Care. 1997;35(9):932-947. doi:10.1097/00005650-199709000-00006
    1. Roos LL, Mustard CA, Nicol JP, et al. . Registries and administrative data: organization and accuracy. Med Care. 1993;31(3):201-212. doi:10.1097/00005650-199303000-00002
    1. Roos LL Jr, Nicol JP, Cageorge SM. Using administrative data for longitudinal research: comparisons with primary data collection. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(1):41-49. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90095-6
    1. Duffy SW, Nagtegaal ID, Wallis M, et al. . Correcting for lead time and length bias in estimating the effect of screen detection on cancer survival. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(1):98-104. doi:10.1093/aje/kwn120
    1. Prevost TC, Launoy G, Duffy SW, Chen HH. Estimating sensitivity and sojourn time in screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of statistical approaches. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148(6):609-619. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009687
    1. Kirsh VA, Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, et al. . Tumor characteristics associated with mammographic detection of breast cancer in the Ontario breast screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(12):942-950. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr138
    1. McCarthy AM, Barlow WE, Conant EF, et al. ; PROSPR Consortium . Breast cancer with a poor prognosis diagnosed after screening mammography with negative results. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(7):998-1001. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0352

Source: PubMed

3
订阅