Impact of Surveillance Mammography Intervals Less Than One Year on Performance Measures in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer

Objective When multiple surveillance mammograms are performed within an annual interval, the current guidance for one-year follow-up to determine breast cancer status results in shared follow-up periods in which a single breast cancer diagnosis can be attributed to multiple preceding examinations, posing a challenge for standardized performance assessment. We assessed the impact of using follow-up periods that eliminate the artifactual inflation of second breast cancer diagnoses. Materials and Methods We evaluated surveillance mammograms from 2007–2016 in women with treated breast cancer linked with tumor registry and pathology outcomes. Second breast cancers included ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer diagnosed during one-year follow-up. The cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, and specificity were compared using different follow-up periods: standard one-year follow-up per the American College of Radiology versus follow-up that was shortened at the next surveillance mammogram if less than one year (truncated follow-up). Performance measures were calculated overall and by indication (screening, evaluation for breast problem, and short interval follow-up). Results Of 117971 surveillance mammograms, 20% (n = 23533) were followed by another surveillance mammogram within one year. Standard follow-up identified 1597 mammograms that were associated with second breast cancers. With truncated follow-up, the breast cancer status of 179 mammograms (11.2%) was revised, resulting in 1418 mammograms associated with unique second breast cancers. The interval cancer rate decreased with truncated versus standard follow-up (3.6 versus 4.9 per 1000 mammograms, respectively), with a difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1). The overall sensitivity increased to 70.4% from 63.7%, for the truncated versus standard follow-up, with a difference (95% CI) of 6.6% (5.6%, 7.7%). The specificity remained stable at 98.1%. Conclusion Truncated follow-up, if less than one year to the next surveillance mammogram, enabled second breast cancers to be associated with a single preceding mammogram and resulted in more accurate estimates of diagnostic performance for national benchmarks.

[1]  L. Moy,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations from the ACR. , 2023, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[2]  D. Buist,et al.  Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. , 2022, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016. , 2021, Radiology.

[4]  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium , 2020, Definitions.

[5]  Christoph I. Lee,et al.  Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization. , 2020, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[6]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Patterns of Breast Imaging Use Among Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer , 2019, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[7]  N. Houssami,et al.  Screening women with a personal history of breast cancer: overview of the evidence on breast imaging surveillance , 2018, Ultrasonography.

[8]  W. Yang,et al.  Overutilization of Health Care Resources for Breast Pain. , 2018, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  W. Moon,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography Plus Ultrasonography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women 50 Years or Younger at Diagnosis and Treated With Breast Conservation Therapy , 2017, JAMA oncology.

[10]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016 , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[11]  J. Lortet-Tieulent,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. , 2015, JAMA.

[12]  C. Flowers,et al.  Benefit of semiannual ipsilateral mammographic surveillance following breast conservation therapy. , 2012, Radiology.

[13]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Defining menopausal status in epidemiologic studies: A comparison of multiple approaches and their effects on breast cancer rates. , 2010, Maturitas.

[14]  D. Buist,et al.  Rate of breast cancer diagnoses among postmenopausal women with self-reported breast symptoms. , 2004, The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice.

[15]  A. Ellis Breast , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[17]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Variability of Postsurgical Imaging Surveillance of Breast Cancer Patients: A Nationwide Survey Study. , 2018, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  T. Stephens Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2011 .

[19]  A. Berg U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2004 .

[20]  C. Balch,et al.  AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed , 2002 .

[21]  J. Cooper Ajcc Cancer Staging Manual , 1997 .