Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND Twenty-one states have laws requiring that women be notified if they have dense breasts and that they be advised to discuss supplemental imaging with their provider. OBJECTIVE To better direct discussions of supplemental imaging by determining which combinations of breast cancer risk and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories are associated with high interval cancer rates. DESIGN Prospective cohort. SETTING Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) breast imaging facilities. PATIENTS 365,426 women aged 40 to 74 years who had 831,455 digital screening mammography examinations. MEASUREMENTS BI-RADS breast density, BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk, and interval cancer rate (invasive cancer ≤12 months after a normal mammography result) per 1000 mammography examinations. High interval cancer rate was defined as more than 1 case per 1000 examinations. RESULTS High interval cancer rates were observed for women with 5-year risk of 1.67% or greater and extremely dense breasts or 5-year risk of 2.50% or greater and heterogeneously dense breasts (24% of all women with dense breasts). The interval rate of advanced-stage disease was highest (>0.4 case per 1000 examinations) among women with 5-year risk of 2.50% or greater and heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts (21% of all women with dense breasts). Five-year risk was low to average (0% to 1.66%) for 51.0% of women with heterogeneously dense breasts and 52.5% with extremely dense breasts, with interval cancer rates of 0.58 to 0.63 and 0.72 to 0.89 case per 1000 examinations, respectively. LIMITATION The benefit of supplemental imaging was not assessed. CONCLUSION Breast density should not be the sole criterion for deciding whether supplemental imaging is justified because not all women with dense breasts have high interval cancer rates. BCSC 5-year risk combined with BI-RADS breast density can identify women at high risk for interval cancer to inform patient-provider discussions about alternative screening strategies. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Cancer Institute.

[1]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  Daniel F Heitjan,et al.  Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[5]  L. Esserman,et al.  Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[6]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. , 2013, Radiology.

[7]  Andrew H. Beck,et al.  Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics , 2013, Breast Cancer Research.

[8]  Rebecca A Hubbard,et al.  Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[9]  D. Gur,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[10]  J. Weigert,et al.  The Connecticut Experiment: The Role of Ultrasound in the Screening of Women With Dense Breasts , 2012, The breast journal.

[11]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Breast density as indicator for the use of mammography or MRI to screen women with familial risk for breast cancer (FaMRIsc): a multicentre randomized controlled trial , 2012, BMC Cancer.

[12]  L. Philpotts,et al.  Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. , 2012, Radiology.

[13]  Etta D Pisano,et al.  Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. , 2012, JAMA.

[14]  C. Lehman,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Community Practice in the United States , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  Bernard Rosner,et al.  Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[17]  S. Cummings,et al.  Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. , 2010, Radiology.

[19]  F. Degenhardt,et al.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review , 2009, BMC Cancer.

[20]  MD Wendie A. Berg,et al.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. , 2008, JAMA.

[21]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Using Clinical Factors and Mammographic Breast Density to Estimate Breast Cancer Risk: Development and Validation of a New Predictive Model , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  The mammogram that cried Wolfe. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  S. Reis,et al.  Effects of Tamoxifen vs Raloxifene on the Risk of Developing Invasive Breast Cancer and Other Disease Outcomes. The NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial , 2006 .

[25]  Norman Wolmark,et al.  Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. , 2006, JAMA.

[26]  Jessica W T Leung,et al.  Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. , 2005, Radiology.

[27]  Gary R Cutter,et al.  Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. , 2005, Radiology.

[28]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening Mammography , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[30]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[31]  D Spiegelman,et al.  Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[32]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[33]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[34]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[35]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  THE USE OF CONFIDENCE OR FIDUCIAL LIMITS ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASE OF THE BINOMIAL , 1934 .

[36]  J. Coebergh,et al.  Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands. , 2014, European journal of cancer.

[37]  E. Halpern,et al.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. , 2013, Radiology.

[38]  D. Wakefield,et al.  Real World Performance of Screening Breast Ultrasound Following Enactment of Connecticut Bill 458 , 2013, The breast journal.

[39]  V. McCormack,et al.  Is mammographic density differentially associated with breast cancer according to receptor status? A meta-analysis , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.