Causes and consequences of delayed diagnosis in breast cancer screening with a focus on mammographic features and tumour characteristics

PURPOSE: To study the prevalence, causes and consequences of delayed breast cancer diagnosis in the screening population. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed in women who underwent biennial screening mammography between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2019. Patients were divided into 3 groups; screen-detectedbreast cancer (SDC) without a diagnostic delay, a primary diagnostic delay(i.e. missed cancer at previous screening round)and a delay in diagnostic work-up after recall. Women with a true interval cancer (IC; i.e. not visible on prior examinations) were excluded. Outcome parameters included mammographic and tumour characteristics, lymph node status and surgical treatment. RESULTS: In our sample of 4491 women with breast cancer (4292 SDC and 199 'missed' IC), respectively, a total of 1112 women experienced a diagnostic delay of = 4 months. Compared to women without a diagnostic delay (n = 2720), the 176 women with a delay in diagnostic work-up showed overall similar mammographic abnormalities (P = 0.052). These groups show similar distributions in invasive tumours, tumour stage and lymph node status (P = 0.25, P = 0.95 and P = 0.93, respectively). Women with a primary diagnostic delay (n = 936) showed less calcifications (P < 0.001), and more masses with calcifications and architectural distortions on mammography (P = 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). Moreover, this group comprised larger tumours (P < 0.001) and lymph node metastases (P < 0.001), and more often underwent mastectomy (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A primary diagnostic delay in breast cancer diagnosis results in less favourable tumour characteristics and relatively more mastectomies compared to no delay in breast cancer diagnosis and a delay in diagnostic work-up after recall

Cancer Detection Rates of Systematic and Targeted Prostate Biopsies after Biparametric MRI

Objective. To compare prostate cancer detection rates (CDRs) and pathology results with targeted prostate biopsy (TB) and systematic prostate biopsy (SB) in biopsy-naive men. Methods. An in-patient control study of 82 men undergoing SB and subsequent TB in case of positive prostate MRI between 2015 and 2017 in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, the Netherlands. Results. Prostate cancer (PCA) was detected in 54.9% with 70.7% agreement between TB and SB. Significant PCA (Gleason score ≥7) was detected in 24.4%. The CDR with TB and SB was 35.4% and 48.8%, respectively (p=0.052). The CDR of significant prostate cancer with TB and SB was both 20.7%. Clinically significant pathology upgrading occurred in 7.3% by adding TB to SB and 22.0% by adding SB to TB. Conclusions. There is no statistically significant difference between CDRs of SB and TB. Both SB and TB miss significant PCAs. Moreover, pathology upgrading occurred more often by adding SB to TB than vice versa. This indicates that the omission of SB in this study population might not be justified

Prostate cancer risk assessment in biopsy-naïve patients: The Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy and systematic TRUS biopsy

Background: The value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TBx) remains controversial for biopsy-naïve men when compared to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy (SBx). Risk-based patient selection could help to selectively identify men with significant prostate cancer (PCa) and thus reduce unnecessary mpMRI and biopsies. Objectives: To compare PCa detection rates for mpMRI TBx with SBx and to determine the rate of potentially avoided mpMRI and biopsies through risk-based selection using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC). Design, setting, and participants: Two-hundred consecutive biopsy-naïve men in two centres underwent mpMRI scanning, 12-core SBx, and subsequent MRI-TRUS TBx in the case of suspicious lesion(s) (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v.2 score ≥3). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We measured the detection rate for high-grade (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4) PCa for TBx and SBx. We carried out a retrospective stratification according to RPCRC biopsy advice to determine the rate of mpMRI and biopsies that could potentially be avoided by RPCRC-based patient selection in relation to the rate of high-grade PCa missed. Results and limitations: TBx yielded high-grade PCa in 51 men (26%) and low-grade PCa in 14 men (7%), while SBx yielded high-grade PCa in 63 men (32%) and low-grade PCa in 41 men (21%). Four out of 73 men (5%) with negative RPCRC advice and 63 out of 127 men (50%) with positive advice had high-grade PCa. Upfront RPCRC-based patient selection for mpMRI and TBx would have avoided 73 out of 200 (37%) mpMRI scans, missing two out of 51 (4%) high-grade PCas. Limitations include the RPCRC definition of high- and low-grade PCa and different mpMRI techniques. Conclusions: mpMRI with TBx detected PCa with high Gleason score and avoided biopsy in low-grade PCa, but failed to detect all high-grade PCa when compared to SBx among biopsy-naïve men. Risk-based patient selection using the RPCRC can avoid one-third of mpMRI scans and SBx in biopsy-naïve men. Patient summary: Men with a suspicion of prostate cancer are increasingly undergoing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Although promising, MRI-targeted biopsy is not accurate enough to safely replace systematic prostate biopsy for now. Individualised assessment of prostate cancer risk using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator could avoid one-third of MRI scans and systematic prostate biopsies. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy is not accurate enough to safely replace systematic prostate biopsy. Individualized assessment of prostate cancer risk using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator could avoid one-third of MRI scans and systematic prostate biopsies