Modelling the overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography screening in women aged 40 to 49 in the United Kingdom

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Breast cancer detection: radiologists’ performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound

ObjectiveRadiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus automated whole-breast ultrasound (AWBU) was compared with mammography alone.MethodsScreenings for non-palpable breast malignancies in women with radiographically dense breasts with contemporaneous mammograms and AWBU were reviewed by 12 radiologists blinded to the diagnoses; half the studies were abnormal. Readers first reviewed the 102 mammograms. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) and Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) likelihood ratings were recorded with location information for identified abnormalities. Readers then reviewed the mammograms and AWBU with knowledge of previous mammogram-only evaluation. We compared reader performance across screening techniques using absolute callback, areas under the curve (AUC), and figure of merit (FOM).ResultsTrue positivity of cancer detection increased 63%, with only a 4% decrease in true negativity. Reader-averaged AUC was higher for mammography plus AWBU compared with mammography alone by BIRADS (0.808 versus 0.701) and likelihood scores (0.810 versus 0.703). Similarly, FOM was higher for mammography plus AWBU compared with mammography alone by BIRADS (0.786 versus 0.613) and likelihood scores (0.791 versus 0.614).ConclusionAdding AWBU to mammography improved callback rates, accuracy of breast cancer detection, and confidence in callbacks for dense-breasted women

Estimation of progression of multi-state chronic disease using the Markov model and prevalence pool concept

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We propose a simple new method for estimating progression of a chronic disease with multi-state properties by unifying the prevalence pool concept with the Markov process model.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Estimation of progression rates in the multi-state model is performed using the E-M algorithm. This approach is applied to data on Type 2 diabetes screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Good convergence of estimations is demonstrated. In contrast to previous Markov models, the major advantage of our proposed method is that integrating the prevalence pool equation (that the numbers entering the prevalence pool is equal to the number leaving it) into the likelihood function not only simplifies the likelihood function but makes estimation of parameters stable.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This approach may be useful in quantifying the progression of a variety of chronic diseases.</p

Long-term prognosis of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods

Introduction Previous studies on breast cancer have shown that patients whose tumors are detected by mammography screening have a more favorable survival. However, little is known about the long-term prognostic impact of screen-detection. The purpose of the current study was to compare breast cancer-specific long-term survival between patients whose tumors were detected in mammography screening and those detected by other methods. Methods Breast cancer patients diagnosed within five specified geographical areas in Finland in 1991-92 were identified (n=2,936). Detailed clinical, treatment and outcome data as well as tissue samples were collected. Women with in situ carcinoma, distant metastases at the primary diagnosis and women who were not operated were excluded. Main analyses were made with exclusions of patients with other malignancy or contralateral breast cancer followed by to sensitivity analyses with different exclusion criterias. Median follow-up time was 15.4 years. Univariate and multivariate analysis of breast cancer-specific survival were performed. Results Of patients included in the main analyses (n=1,884) 22% (n=408) were screen-detected and 78% (n=1,476) were detected by other methods. Breast cancer-specific 15-year survival was 86% for patients with screen-detected cancer and 66% for patients diagnosed by other methods (p<0.0001, HR=2.91). Similar differences in survival were also observed in women at screening age (50-69 years) as well as in clinically important subgroups, such as patients with small tumors ([less than or equal to]1cm in diameter) and without nodal involvement (N0). Women with breast cancer diagnosed by screening mammography had a more favorable prognosis compared to those diagnosed outside of screening program following adjustments according to patient age, tumor size, axillary lymph node status, histological grade and hormone receptor status. Significant differences in the risk of having future contralateral breast cancer according to method of detection was not observed . Conclusions Breast cancer detection in mammography screening is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer and is associated with a more favorable survival also in long-term follow-up.BioMed Central open acces

Recent breast cancer incidence trends according to hormone therapy use: the California Teachers Study cohort

Abstract Introduction Recent, international declines in breast cancer incidence are unprecedented, and the causes remain controversial. Few data sources can address breast cancer incidence trends according to pertinent characteristics like hormone therapy use history. Methods We used the prospective California Teachers Study to evaluate changes in self-reported use of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) between 1995 to 1996 and 2005 to 2006 and age-adjusted breast cancer incidence among 74,647 participants aged 50 years or older. Breast cancer occurrence was determined by linkage with the California Cancer Registry. Results During 517,286 woman years of follow up, 565 in situ and 2,668 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed. In situ breast cancer incidence rates in this population did not change significantly from 2000 to 2002 to 2003 to 2005, whereas rates of invasive breast cancer declined significantly by 26.0% from 528.0 (95% confidence intervals (CI) = 491.1, 564.9) per 100,000 women in 2000 to 2002 to 390.6 (95% CI = 355.6, 425.7) in 2003 to 2005. The decline in invasive breast cancer incidence rates was restricted to estrogen receptor-positive tumors. In 1996 to 1999 and 2000 to 2002 invasive breast cancer incidence was higher for women who reported current HT use especially estrogen-progestin (EP) use at baseline than for never or past users; but by 2003 to 2005 rates were comparable between these groups. For women who were taking EP in 2001 to 2002,75% of whom had stopped use by 2005 to 2006, incidence had declined 30.6% by 2003 to 2005 (P = 0.001); whereas incidence did not change significantly for those who never took HT (P = 0.33). Conclusions Few data resources can examine prospectively individual HT use and breast cancer diagnosis. Stable in situ breast cancer rates imply consistent levels of screening and suggest recent declines in invasive breast cancer to be explained predominantly by changes in HT use

The pathology of familial breast cancer: Clinical and genetic counselling implications of breast cancer pathology

Approximately 5% of all breast cancers are due to one of the high-risk breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, or possibly to a third or fourth moderate- to high-risk gene(s). A further proportion of cases arise in the presence of a less striking family history, with later average age at onset and lower penetrance: familial breast cancer. Bilaterality is a recognized feature of hereditary breast cancer. Cancers often present at an early age, with the contralateral risk high within 10 years. Proof that bilateral malignancies are separate primaries can be difficult histologically, however, especially within 3 years. The recent finding of specific pathological features related to BRCA1 and, to a lesser extent, BRCA2 mutations means that, in addition to bilaterality and family history, a pathological element can be entered into the risk calculation for the presence of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. This will facilitate the targeting of mutation testing to families in which a positive result is most likely, and may subsequently influence the clinical management of these families