Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study

Summary Background The value of screen detection and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a matter of controversy. At present, the extent to which the diagnosis and treatment of DCIS could prevent the occurrence of invasive breast cancer in the future is not clear. We sought to estimate the association between detection of DCIS at screening and invasive interval cancers subsequent to the relevant screen. Methods We obtained aggregate data for screen-detected cancers from 84 local screening units within 11 regional Quality Assurance Reference Centres in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Data for DCIS diagnoses were obtained for women aged 50–64 years who were invited to and attended mammographic breast screening from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2007 (4 screening years). Patient-level data for interval cancer arising in the 36 months after each of these were analysed by Poisson regression with invasive interval cancer screen detection rate as the outcome variable; DCIS detection frequencies were fitted first as a continuous and then as a categorical variable. We repeated this analysis after adjustment with both small size and high-grade invasive screen-detected cancers. Findings We analysed data for 5 243 658 women and on interval cancers occurring in the 36 months after the relevant screen. The average frequency of DCIS detected at screening was 1·60 per 1000 women screened (median 1·50 [unit range 1·54–3·56] per 1000 women). There was a significant negative association of screen-detected DCIS cases with the rate of invasive interval cancers (Poisson regression coefficient −0·084 [95% CI −0·13 to −0·03]; p=0·002). 90% of units had a DCIS detection frequency within the range of 1·00 to 2·22 per 1000 women; in these units, for every three screen-detected cases of DCIS, there was one fewer invasive interval cancer in the next 3 years. This association remained after adjustment for numbers of small screen-detected invasive cancers and for numbers of grade 3 invasive screen-detected cancers. Interpretation The association between screen-detected DCIS and subsequent invasive interval cancers suggests that detection and treatment of DCIS is worthwhile in prevention of future invasive disease. Funding UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme and NHS Cancer Screening Programmes.

[1]  S. Duffy,et al.  Overdiagnosis in screening: is the increase in breast cancer incidence rates a cause for concern? , 2004, Journal of medical screening.

[2]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 1996, JAMA.

[3]  I. Ellis,et al.  The detection of ductal carcinoma in situ at mammographic screening enables the diagnosis of small, grade 3 invasive tumours. , 1997, British Journal of Cancer.

[4]  A. Ponti,et al.  Ascertainment and evaluation of interval cancers in population-based mammography screening programmes: a collaborative study in four European centres , 2005, Journal of medical screening.

[5]  Norman E. Breslow,et al.  Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Vol. II: The Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. , 1990 .

[6]  L. Tabár,et al.  Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. , 2003, European journal of cancer.

[7]  L. Tabár,et al.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: Estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer , 2005, Breast Cancer Research.

[8]  S. Moss,et al.  Interval cancers in the NHS breast cancer screening programme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[9]  S. Duffy,et al.  Modelling the impact of detecting and treating ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme , 2004, Journal of medical screening.

[10]  L. Tabár,et al.  The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. , 2003, European journal of cancer.

[11]  F. Alexander,et al.  Measures of benefit for breast screening from the pathology database for Scotland, 1991–2001 , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[12]  S. Duffy,et al.  Overdiagnosis in Screening: Is the Increase in Breast Cancer Incidence Rates a Cause for Concern ? , 2004 .

[13]  Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight‐year update of protocol B‐17 , 2000, Cancer.

[14]  M. Pike,et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference statement: Diagnosis and Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ September 22-24, 2009. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial , 2010, The Lancet. Oncology.

[16]  A. Barratt Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: a 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  N. Breslow,et al.  Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II--The design and analysis of cohort studies. , 1987, IARC scientific publications.

[18]  J. Hendriks,et al.  © 1999 Cancer Research Campaign Article no. bjoc.1999.0786 Interval cancers in the Dutch breast cancer screening , 2022 .

[19]  S. Duffy,et al.  Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: the importance of length of observation period and lead time , 2013, Breast Cancer Research.

[20]  A. Bleyer,et al.  Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  J Costantino,et al.  Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight‐year update of Protocol B‐17 , 1999, Cancer.