Search

Background Women with elevated mammographic density have an increased risk of developing breast cancer. However, among women diagnosed with breast cancer, it is unclear whether higher density portends reduced survival, independent of other factors. Methods We evaluated relationships between mammographic density and risk of death from breast cancer and all causes within the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We studied 9232 women diagnosed with primary invasive breast carcinoma during 1996-2005, with a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Mammographic density was assessed using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression; women with scattered fibroglandular densities (BI-RADS 2) were the referent group. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results A total of 1795 women died, of whom 889 died of breast cancer. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for site, age at and year of diagnosis, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, body mass index, mode of detection, treatment, and income), high density (BI-RADS 4) was not related to risk of death from breast cancer (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.19) or death from all causes (HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.02). Analyses stratified by stage and other prognostic factors yielded similar results, except for an increased risk of breast cancer death among women with low density (BI-RADS 1) who were either obese (HR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.37 to 2.97) or had tumors of at least 2.0cm (HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.14 to 2.09). Conclusions High mammographic breast density was not associated with risk of death from breast cancer or death from any cause after accounting for other patient and tumor characteristics. Thus, risk factors for the development of breast cancer may not necessarily be the same as factors influencing the risk of death after breast cancer has developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a prospective cohort study conducted on several women aged between 40 to 59 years at mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to determine and compare the effectiveness of the digital screening mammography and film-Screening mammography in the U.S. Community practice. The study found that both the methods yielded similar results in the cancer diagnosis in U.S. INSET: Untitled.

Background Computer-aided detection (CAD) is applied during screening mammography for millions of US women annually, although it is uncertain whether CAD improves breast cancer detection when used by community radiologists. Methods We investigated the association between CAD use during film-screen screening mammography and specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, cancer detection rates, and prognostic characteristics of breast cancers (stage, size, and node involvement). Records from 684 956 women who received more than 1.6 million film-screen mammograms at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities in seven states in the United States from 1998 to 2006 were analyzed. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between CAD and specificity (true-negative examinations among women without breast cancer), sensitivity (true-positive examinations among women with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of mammography), and positive predictive value (breast cancer diagnosed after positive mammograms) while adjusting for mammography registry, patient age, time since previous mammography, breast density, use of hormone replacement therapy, and year of examination (1998–2002 vs 2003–2006). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Of 90 total facilities, 25 (27.8%) adopted CAD and used it for an average of 27.5 study months. In adjusted analyses, CAD use was associated with statistically significantly lower specificity (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 0.89, P < .001) and positive predictive value (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.99, P = .03). A non-statistically significant increase in overall sensitivity with CAD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33, P = .62) was attributed to increased sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.91; P = .17), although sensitivity for invasive cancer was similar with or without CAD (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.24; P = .77). CAD was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer. Conclusion CAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Most breast biopsies will be negative for cancer. Benign breast biopsy can cause changes in the breast tissue, but whether such changes affect the interpretive performance of future screening mammography is not known. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article examines whether rates of using mammography to identify breast cancer have decreased in the U.S. Mammography rates from 1987 through 2005 were assessed. The 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) estimates were used to characterize trends and current patterns in mammography use in the country. The researchers discovered that estimates from the 2005 NHIS showed a decline compared with 2000.

Background: Radiologists differ in their ability to interpret screening mammograms accurately. We investigated the relationship of radiologist characteristics to actual performance from 1996 to 2001. Methods: Screening mammograms (n = 469 512) interpreted by 124 radiologists were linked to cancer outcome data. The radiologists completed a survey that included questions on demographics, malpractice concerns, years of experience interpreting mammograms, and the number of mammograms read annually. We used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to analyze variables associated with sensitivity, specificity, and the combination of the two, adjusting for patient variables that affect performance. All P values are two-sided. Results: Within 1 year of the mammogram, 2402 breast cancers were identified. Relative to low annual interpretive volume (≤1000 mammograms), greater interpretive volume was associated with higher sensitivity (P = .001; odds ratio [OR] for moderate volume [1001-2000] = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.39; OR for high volume [>2000] = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.63). Specificity decreased with volume (OR for 1001-2000 = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.83; OR for more than 2000 = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96), compared with 1000 or less (P = .002). Greater number of years of experience interpreting mammograms was associated with lower sensitivity (P = .001), but higher specificity (P = .003). ROC analysis using the ordinal BI-RADS interpretation showed an association between accuracy and both previous mammographic history (P = .012) and breast density (P<.001). No association was observed between accuracy and years interpreting mammograms (P = .34) or mammography volume (P = .94), alter adjusting for variables that affect the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. Conclusions: We found no evidence that greater volume or experience at interpreting mammograms is associated with better performance. However, they may affect sensitivity and specificity, possibly by determining the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. Increasing volume requirements is unlikely to improve overall mammography performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mammography screening may reduce breast cancer mortality by detecting cancers at an earlier stage. However, certain questions remain, including the ideal interval between mammograms. Methods: We conducted an observational study using information collected by seven mammography registries across the United States to investigate whether women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 2-year interval (n = 2440) are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (positive lymph nodes or metastases) than women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 1-year interval (n = 5400). Analyses were stratified by age and breast density to clarify whether groups that have the poorest mammography sensitivity (i.e., women under age 50 years and those with mammographically dense breasts) would benefit most from annual screening. The subjects were women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1996 and 2001 who were 40–89 years old at their index mammographic examination (i.e., the most recent screen at or before breast cancer diagnosis). Data were analyzed by logistic regression, adjusting for race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and mammography registry. Results: Among women age 40–49 years at the index mammogram, those with a 2-year screening interval were more likely to have late-stage disease at diagnosis than those with a 1-year screening interval (28% versus 21%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.81). There was no increase in late-stage disease for women 50 years or older with a 2-year versus a 1-year screening interval (women age 50–59 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.25; women age 60–69 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.35; women age 70 years or older at index mammogram: OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.19). There was no indication that women with dense breasts would benefit more from a 1-year versus 2-year screening interval than women with fatty breasts. Conclusion: These findings may be useful for policy decisions about appropriate screening intervals and for use in statistical models that estimate the costs and benefits of mammography by age and screening interval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mammography screening increases the detection of early-stage breast cancers. Therefore, implementing screening should reduce the percentage of women who are diagnosed with late-stage disease. However, despite high national mammography screening rates, late-stage breast cancers still occur, possibly because of failures in screening implementation. Methods: Using data from seven health care plans that included 1.5 million women aged 50 years or older, we conducted retrospective reviews of chart and automated data for 3 years before 1995–1999 diagnoses of late-stage (metastatic and/or tumor size ≥3 cm; case subjects, n = 1347) and early-stage breast cancers (control subjects, n = 1347). We categorized the earliest screening mammogram during the period 13–36 months before diagnosis as none (absence of screening), negative (absence of detection), or positive (potential breakdown in follow-up). We compared the proportion of case and control subjects in each category of screening implementation and estimated the likelihood (odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of late-stage breast cancer. We also evaluated demographic characteristics associated with absence of screening in women with late-stage disease. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Absence of screening, absence of detection, and potential breakdown in follow-up were distributed differently among case (52.1%, 39.5%, and 8.4%, respectively) and control subjects (34.4%, 56.9%, and 8.8%, respectively) (P = .03). Among all women, the odds of having late-stage cancer were higher among women with an absence of screening (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.84 to 2.56; P<.001). Among case patients, women were more likely to be in the absence-of-screening group if they were aged 75 years or older (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 2.10 to 3.65), unmarried (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.41 to 2.24), or without a family history of breast cancer (OR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.45 to 2.34). A higher proportion of women from census blocks with less education (58.5% versus 49.4%; P = .003) or lower median annual income (54.4% versus 42.9%; P = .004) were in the absence-of-screening category compared with the proportion for the other two categories combined. Conclusions: To reduce late-stage breast cancer occurrence, reaching unscreened women, including elderly, unmarried, low-income, and less educated women, should be made a top priority for screening implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Younger women (40–49 years) have lower mammographic sensitivity (i.e., greater proportion of cancers detected after a negative mammogram) than older women (≥50 years). We explored the effect of tumor growth rate, breast density, mammographic image quality, and breast cancer risk factors on mammographic sensitivity in younger and older women. Methods: We studied 576 women (n = 73 aged 40–49 years and n = 503 aged 50 years or older) who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1988 and 1993. Interval cancers were defined as those diagnosed within 12 or 24 months after a negative screening mammogram and before a subsequent mammogram. Tumor growth rate was assessed by mitotic figure count and Ki-67 positivity. The main outcome measures were percentage of women with interval cancer (1 - mammographic sensitivity) by age, odds ratio (OR) of interval cancer by age, and excess odds (i.e., the percentage of the odds ratio for age that was explained by individual covariates). Results: Interval cancers occurred in 27.7% of younger women and 13.9% of older women within 12 months (OR = 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14 to 4.77) and in 52.1% of younger women and 24.7% of older women within 24 months (OR = 3.58, 95% CI = 2.15 to 5.97). Greater breast density explained 67.6% of the decreased mammographic sensitivity in younger women at 12 months, whereas rapid tumor growth explained 30.6% and breast density explained 37.6% of the decreased sensitivity in younger women at 24 months. Conclusions: Breast density largely explained decreased mammographic sensitivity at 12 months, whereas rapid tumor growth contributed to decreased mammographic sensitivity at 24 months. A 12-month versus a 24-month mammography screening interval may therefore reduce the adverse impact of faster growing tumors on mammographic sensitivity in younger women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Use of antibiotics may be associated with risk of breast cancer through effects on immune function, inflammation, and metabolism of estrogen and phytochemicals; however, clinical data on the association between antibiotic use and risk of breast cancer are sparse. Objective: To examine the association between use of antibiotics and risk of breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Case-control study among 2266 women older than 19 years with primary, invasive breast cancer (cases) enrolled in a large, nonprofit health plan for at least 1 year between January 1, 1993, and June 30, 2001, and 7953 randomly selected female health plan members (controls), frequency-matched to cases on age and length of enrollment. Cases were ascertained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry. Antibiotic use was ascertained from computerized pharmacy records. Main Outcome Measure: Association between extent of antibiotic use and risk of breast cancer. Results: Increasing cumulative days of antibiotic use were associated with increased risk of incident breast cancer, adjusted for age and length of enrollment. For categories of increasing use (0, 1-50, 51-100, 101-500, 501-1000, and ≥1001 days), odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for breast cancer were 1.00 (reference), 1.45 (1.24-1.69), 1.53 (1.28-1.83), 1.68 (1.42-2.00), 2.14 (1.60-2.88), and 2.07 (1.48-2.89) (P<.001 for trend). Increased risk was observed in all antibiotic classes studied and in a subanalysis having breast cancer fatality as the outcome. Among women with the highest levels of tetracycline or macrolide use, risk of breast cancer was not elevated in those using these antibiotics exclusively for acne or rosacea (indications that could be risk factors for breast cancer due to altered hormone levels), compared with those using them exclusively for respiratory tract infections, adjusted for age and length of enrollment (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Breast augmentation is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer; however, implants may interfere with the detection of breast cancer thereby delaying cancer diagnosis in women with augmentation. Objective: To determine whether mammography accuracy and tumor characteristics are different for women with and without augmentation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort of 137 women with augmentation and 685 women without augmentation diagnosed with breast cancer between January 1, 1995, and October 15, 2002, matched (1:5) by age, race/ethnicity, previous mammography screening, and mammography registry, and 10 533 women with augmentation and 974 915 women without augmentation and without breast cancer among 7 mammography registries in Denver, Colo; Lebanon, NH; Albuquerque, NM; Chapel Hill, NC; San Francisco, Calif; Seattle, Wash; and Burlington, Vt. Main Outcome Measures: Comparison between women with and without augmentation of mammography performance measures and cancer characteristics, including invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, tumor stage, nodal status, size, grade, and estrogen-receptor status. Results: Among asymptomatic women, the sensitivity of screening mammography based on the final assessment was lower in women with breast augmentation vs women without (45.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 29.3%-61.5%] vs 66.8% [95% CI, 60.4%-72.8%]; P = .008), and specificity was slightly higher in women with augmentation (97.7% [95% CI, 97.4%-98.0%] vs 96.7% [95% CI, 96.6%-96.7%]; P<.001). Among symptomatic women, both sensitivity and specificity were lower for women with augmentation compared with women without but these differences were not significant. Tumors were of similar stage, size, estrogen-receptor status, and nodal status but tended to be lower grade (P = .052) for women with breast augmentation vs without. Conclusions: Breast augmentation decreases the sensitivity of screening mammography among asymptomatic women but does not increase the false-positive rate. Despite the lower accuracy of mammography in women with augmentation, the prognostic characteristics of tumors are not influenced by augmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. In a health maintenance organization that mails letters to women recommending that they schedule mammograms, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate simple methods of increasing the use of screening mammography. Methods. Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, we tested the effects of (1) mailing the recommendation letter from each woman's primary care physician rather than from the program director and (2) sending a subsequent reminder postcard. Results. Sending a reminder postcard nearly doubled the odds that women would get mammograms within 1 year (participate). The letter from the woman's personal physician had no effect. Attending a clinic more than 45 minutes from the screening center, being a current smoker, or being in fair or poor health were negatively associated with subsequently obtaining a mammogram. The odds of participation doubled if women had previous mammograms. Conclusions. When preceded by written recommendations to schedule mammograms, reminder postcards effectively increased participation. Future randomized trials to promote use of screening mammography should compare interventions with a reminder condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]