Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study

Abstract Objectives To examine how lifestyle, hormonal, and other factors influence the sensitivity and specificity of mammography. Methods Women recruited into the Million Women Study completed a questionnaire about various personal factors before routine mammographic screening. A sample of 122 355 women aged 50-64 years were followed for outcome of screening and incident breast cancer in the next 12 months. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by using standard definitions, with adjustment for potential confounding factors. Results Breast cancer was diagnosed in 726 (0.6%) women, 629 in screen positive and 97 in screen negative women; 3885 (3.2%) were screen positive but had no subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer. Overall sensitivity was 86.6% and specificity was 96.8%. Three factors had an adverse effect on both measures: use of hormone replacement therapy (sensitivity: 83.0% (95% confidence interval 77.4% to 87.6%), 84.7% (73.9% to 91.6%), and 92.1% (87.6% to 95.0%); specificity: 96.8% (96.6% to 97.0%), 97.8% (97.5% to 98.0%), and 98.1% (98.0% to 98.2%), respectively, for current, past, and never use); previous breast surgery v no previous breast surgery (sensitivity: 83.5% (75.7% to 89.1%) v 89.4% (86.5% to 91.8%); specificity: 96.2% (95.8% to 96.5%) v 97.4% (97.3% to 97.5%), respectively); and body mass index < 25 v ≥ 25 (sensitivity: 85.7% (81.2% to 89.3%) v 91.0% (87.5% to 93.6%); specificity: 97.2% (97.0% to 97.3%) v 97.4% (97.3% to 97.6%), respectively). Neither sensitivity nor specificity varied significantly according to age, family history of breast cancer, parity, past oral contraceptive use, tubal ligation, physical activity, smoking, or alcohol consumption. Conclusions The efficiency, and possibly the effectiveness, of mammographic screening is lower in users of hormone replacement therapy, in women with previous breast surgery, and in thin women compared with other women.

[1]  B. Viták,et al.  Interval cancers in the Norwegian breast cancer screening program: Frequency, characteristics and use of HRT , 2001, International journal of cancer.

[2]  P. Playford,et al.  An analysis of factors associated with interval as opposed to screen-detected breast cancers, including hormone therapy and mammographic density. , 2002, Breast.

[3]  V. Beral,et al.  Predictors of outcome of mammography in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme , 2002, Journal of medical screening.

[4]  V. Beral,et al.  The effect of hormone replacement therapy on breast and other cancers , 2004 .

[5]  V. Beral,et al.  Impact of use of hormone replacement therapy on false positive recall in the NHS breast screening programme: results from the million women study , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. , 1996, JAMA.

[7]  E. Banks Hormone replacement therapy and the sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer screening: a review , 2001, Journal of medical screening.

[8]  V. Beral,et al.  Patterns of use of hormone replacement therapy in one million women in Britain, 1996–2000 , 2002, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  I. Fentiman,et al.  Relationship of mammographic parenchymal patterns with breast cancer risk factors and risk of breast cancer in a prospective study. , 1990, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  R. Langer,et al.  Influence of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Breast Cancer and Mammography in Healthy Postmenopausal Women: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial , 2003 .

[11]  C A Kelsey,et al.  Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. , 1998, Radiology.

[12]  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.

[13]  The ESUB-MG Study Group The Million Women Study: design and characteristics of the study population , 1999, Breast Cancer Research.

[14]  S. Duffy,et al.  Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme , 1998, Journal of medical screening.

[15]  L. Kay A research culture that asks too much , 1997, The Lancet.

[16]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[17]  V. Beral,et al.  Agreement between general practice prescription data and self-reported use of hormone replacement therapy and treatment for various illnesses. , 2001, Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics.

[18]  Linda Olson,et al.  Effects of Estrogen and EstrogenProgestin on Mammographic Parenchymal Density , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  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.

[20]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[21]  Robert B. Jaffe Performance of Screening Mammography Among Women With and Without a First-Degree Relative With Breast Cancer , 2001 .

[22]  N. Boyd,et al.  Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  R. Langer,et al.  Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. , 2003, JAMA.

[24]  Valerie Beral,et al.  Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study , 2003, The Lancet.