Do reproductive and hormonal risk factors for breast cancer associate with attendance at mammography screening?

PURPOSE: To determine whether reproductive and hormonal risk factors for breast cancer associate with mammography attendance. METHODS: We linked data from the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study to the Malmö mammography register (Sweden, 1992-2009). We analyzed 11,409 women (age 44-72) who were free of breast cancer at study entry and a total of 69,746 screening invitations. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to account for repeated measures within subjects. Models were adjusted for age and other sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: In this study cohort, mammography screening attendance ranged from 87.6 to 94.5 % between calendar years, with an average attendance of 92 %. Higher attendance was found among women who had given birth to fewer than three children (ORs ranging between 1.15 and 1.37) and had used oral contraceptives (OC) within the last decade (OR = 1.22, 95 % CI 1.07-1.38) and for a longer period (OR = 1.13, 95 % CI 1.01-1.27). A lower odds of attendance was found among post-menopausal women (OR = 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77-0.96). Age <13 at menarche, age ≥30 at first childbirth, age ≥55 at menopause, age <20 at first OC use, nulliparity, breastfeeding, and hormone replacement therapy were not associated with mammography attendance. CONCLUSION: Reproductive and hormonal risk factors for breast cancer have little effect on mammography screening attendance. This may indicate a potential for under-screening of some women at higher risk

Psychosocial factors and attendance at a population-based mammography screening program in a cohort of Swedish women

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the factors that influence mammography screening attendance is needed to improve the effectiveness of these screening programs. The objective of the study was to examine whether psychosocial factors predicted attendance at a population-based invitational mammography screening program. METHODS: Data on cohabitation, social network/support, sense of control, and stress were obtained from the Malmö Diet and Cancer Cohort Study and linked to the Malmö mammography register in Sweden. We analyzed 11,409 women (age 44 to 72) who were free of breast cancer at study entry (1992 to 1996). Mammography attendance was followed from cohort entry to December 31, 2009. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to account for repeated measures within subjects. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. RESULTS: Among 69,746 screening opportunities there were 5,552 (8%) cases of non-attendance. Higher odds of non-attendance were found among women who lived alone (OR = 1.47 (1.33-1.63)) or with children only (OR = 1.52 (1.29-1.81)), had one childbirth (OR = 1.12 (1.01-1.24)) or three or more childbirths (OR = 1.34 (1.21-1.48)), had low social participation (OR= 1.21 (1.10-1.31)), low sense of control (OR = 1.12 (1.02-1.23)), and experienced greater stress (OR = 1.24 (1.13-1.36)). CONCLUSIONS: Public health campaigns designed to optimize mammography screening attendance may benefit from giving more consideration of how to engage with women who are less socially involved

Factors affecting recall rate and false positive fraction in breast cancer screening with breast tomosynthesis - A statistical approach.

In this study, we investigate which factors affect the false positive fraction (FPF) for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to digital mammography (DM) in a screening population by using classification and regression trees (C&RT) and binary marginal generalized linear models. The data was obtained from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, which aimed to compare the performance of DBT to DM in breast cancer screening. By using data from the first half of the study population (7500 women), a tree with the recall probability for different groups was calculated. The effect of age and breast density on the FPF was estimated using a binary marginal generalized linear model. Our results show that breast density and breast cancer were the main factors influencing recall. The FPF is mainly affected by breast density and increases with breast density for DBT and DM. In conclusion, the results obtained with C&RT are easy to interpret and similar to those obtained using binary marginal generalized linear models. The FPF is approximately 40% higher for DBT compared to DM for all breast density categories

Overview of tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for breast cancer screening.

This review of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis, a 3D-mammography technology, for breast cancer (BC) screening describes two types of studies. Prospective trials comparing tomosynthesis (combined with 2D mammography) with 2D mammography alone in the same participants were based on doublereading practice in mostly biennial screening. These showed incremental BC detection attributed to use of tomosynthesis ranging from 2.2 to 2.7 per 1000 screens. Retrospective studies reported the difference in BC detection between women screened with tomosynthesis (2D plus 3D mammography) or with 2D mammography alone, using single-reading and mostly annual screening. Differences in cancer detection ranged between 0.2 and 2.1 per 1000 screens favoring tomosynthesis. The impact of using tomosynthesis on recall was heterogeneous; however, significant reduction in recall rates was observed among the retrospective studies

Do mammographic tumor features in breast cancer relate to breast density and invasiveness, tumor size, and axillary lymph node involvement?

Breast density and mammographic tumor features of breast cancer may carry prognostic information. The potential benefit of using the combined information obtained from breast density, mammographic tumor features, and pathological tumor characteristics has not been extensively studied

The association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with breast density and breast cancer survival : the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study

The author(s) received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by government funding for clinical research within the National Health Services, Sweden. FG was a Leopoldina Postdoctoral Fellow (Grant No. LPDS 2018-06) funded by the Academy of Sciences Leopoldina.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance: randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen Norway

Objective To explore attendance at organised mammographic screening among immigrant groups that received an invitation letter and information leaflet (invitation) in their language of origin and Norwegian compared with Norwegian only. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Population based screening programme for breast cancer in Norway (BreastScreen Norway), which invites women aged 50-69 to two-view mammographic screening biennially. Participants All women invited to BreastScreen Norway in the study period April 2021 to June 2022 whose language of origin was Arabic (women born in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, or Morocco), English (women born in the Philippines), Polish (women born in Poland), Somali (women born in Somalia), or Urdu (women born in Pakistan) (n=11347). Intervention The study group received an invitation to screening in their language of origin and in Norwegian, whereas the control group received an invitation in Norwegian only during the study period. Main outcome measure Attendance at BreastScreen Norway during the study period. Results Overall attendance was 46.5% (2642/5683) in the study group and 47.4% (2682/5664) in the control group. No statistical differences in attendance were observed after stratification by language of invitation, age at invitation, or years since immigration. Conclusions No difference in attendance was observed between immigrant women invited to BreastScreen Norway in their language of origin and in Norwegian compared with Norwegian only. Several barriers to cancer screening may exist among immigrants, and translating the invitation is probably only a part of a complex explanation

FGF/FGFR1 system in paired breast tumor-adjacent and tumor tissues, associations with mammographic breast density and tumor characteristics

IntroductionMammographic breast density (MBD) is an established breast cancer risk factor, yet the underlying molecular mechanisms remain to be deciphered. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) amplification is associated with breast cancer development and aberrant FGF signaling found in the biological processes related to both high mammographic density and breast cancer microenvironment. The aim of this study was to investigate the FGF/FGFR1 expression in-between paired tumor-adjacent and tumor tissues from the same patient, and its associations with MBD and tumor characteristics.MethodsFGFR1 expression in paired tissues from 426 breast cancer patients participating in the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) cohort study was analyzed by immunohistochemistry. FGF ligand expression was obtained from RNA-sequencing data for 327 of the included patients.ResultsFGFR1 levels were differently expressed in tumor-adjacent and tumor tissues, with increased FGFR1 levels detected in 58% of the tumors. High FGFR1 expression in tumor tissues was associated with less favorable tumor characteristics; high histological grade (OR=1.86, 95% CI 1.00–3.44), high Ki67 proliferative index (OR=2.18, 95% CI 1.18–4.02) as well as tumors of Luminal B-like subtype (OR=2.56, 95%CI 1.29–5.06). While no clear association between FGFR1 expression and MBD was found, FGF ligand (FGF1, FGF11, FGF18) expression was positively correlated with MBD.DiscussionTaken together, these findings support a role of the FGF/FGFR1 system in early breast cancer which warrants further investigation in the MBD–breast cancer context

Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems performing at radiologist-like levels in the evaluation of digital mammography (DM) would improve breast cancer screening accuracy and efficiency. We aimed to compare the stand-alone performance of an AI system to that of radiologists in detecting breast cancer in DM. METHODS: Nine multi-reader, multi-case study datasets previously used for different research purposes in seven countries were collected. Each dataset consisted of DM exams acquired with systems from four different vendors, multiple radiologists' assessments per exam, and ground truth verified by histopathological analysis or follow-up, yielding a total of 2652 exams (653 malignant) and interpretations by 101 radiologists (28 296 independent interpretations). An AI system analyzed these exams yielding a level of suspicion of cancer present between 1 and 10. The detection performance between the radiologists and the AI system was compared using a noninferiority null hypothesis at a margin of 0.05. RESULTS: The performance of the AI system was statistically noninferior to that of the average of the 101 radiologists. The AI system had a 0.840 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.820 to 0.860) area under the ROC curve and the average of the radiologists was 0.814 (95% CI = 0.787 to 0.841) (difference 95% CI = -0.003 to 0.055). The AI system had an AUC higher than 61.4% of the radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated AI system achieved a cancer detection accuracy comparable to an average breast radiologist in this retrospective setting. Although promising, the performance and impact of such a system in a screening setting needs further investigation

Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Background: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography, however, it is unknown whether this reduces interval cancer rate (ICR) at follow-up. Methods: Using individual participant data (IPD) from DBT screening studies (identified via periodic literature searches July 2016 to November 2019) we performed an IPD meta-analysis. We estimated ICR for DBT-screened participants and the difference in pooled ICR for DBT and mammography-only screening, and compared interval BC characteristics. Two-stage meta-analysis (study-specific estimation, pooled synthesis) of ICR included random-effects, adjusting for study and age, and was estimated in age and density subgroups. Comparative screening sensitivity was calculated using screen-detected and interval BC data. Findings: Four prospective DBT studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants: age-adjusted pooled ICR was 13.17/10,000 (95%CI: 8.25-21.02). Pooled ICR was higher in the high-density (21.08/10,000; 95%CI: 6.71-66.27) than the low-density (8.63/10,000; 95%CI: 5.25-14.192) groups (P = 0.03) however estimates did not differ across age-groups (P = 0.32). Based on two studies that also provided data for 153,800 mammography screens (age-adjusted ICR 17.69/10,000; 95%CI: 13.22-23.66), DBT's pooled ICR was 16.83/10,000 (95%CI: 11.89-23.82). Comparative meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in ICR (-0.44/10,000; 95%CI: -11.00-10.11) and non-significant difference in screening sensitivity (6.79%; 95%CI: -0.73-14.87%) between DBT and DM but a significant pooled difference in cancer detection rate of 33.49/10,000 (95%CI: 23.88-43.10). Distribution of interval BC prognostic characteristics did not differ between screening modalities except that those occurring in DBT-screened participants were significantly more likely to be negative for axillary-node metastases (P = 0.005). Interpretation: Although heterogeneity in ICR estimates and few datasets limit recommendations, there was no difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR despite DBT increasing cancer detection. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd