Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer a cohort study

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 162, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 673-681

  Kerlikowske, Karla ^a   Zhu, Weiwei ^b   Tosteson, Anna N A ^c   Sprague, Brian L ^d   Tice, Jeffrey A ^e   Lehman, Constance D ^f   Miglioretti, Diana L ^g  

^a SAN FRANCISCO VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d Office of Health Promotion Research   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER RISK; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ETHNICITY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; FIRST DEGREE RELATIVE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RACE; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84939447471     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/M14-1465     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227-36. [PMID: 17229950].
2. Are You Dense Advocacy Web site. Accessed at www .areyoudenseadvocacy.org on 24 March 2015.
3. American College of Radiology. The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
4. Kerlikowske K. The mammogram that cried Wolfe [Editorial]. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:297-300. [PMID: 17229958].
5. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, Wellman RD, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106. [PMID: 25217577] doi:10.1093/jnci/dju255.
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MQSA National Statistics. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2014. Accessed at www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm on 21 September 2014.
7. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:493-502. [PMID: 22007043] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00005.
8. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al; ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:2151-63. [PMID: 18477782] doi:10.1001/jama.299.18.2151.
9. Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, et al. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- And screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:2020-8. [PMID: 10580027].
10. Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Coebergh JW, Roumen RM, Lohle PN, et al. Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment- A population based study from the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:31-9. [PMID: 24275518]doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.018.
11. Drukker CA, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, Cardoso F, Kerlikowske K, Esserman LJ, et al. Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144:103-11. [PMID: 24469641] doi:10.1007/s10549-013-2830-5.
12. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:337-47. [PMID: 18316752] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-5-200803040-00004.
13. Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA. Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:358- 66. [PMID: 11238697].
14. Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, Haeberle L, Ziv E, Jensen MR, et al. The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107. [PMID: 25745020] doi:10.1093/jnci/dju397.
15. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: A national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001-8. [PMID: 9308451].
16. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JW, Rosenberg RD, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;235:775-90. [PMID: 15914475].
17. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94: 1546-54. [PMID: 12381707].
18. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology. 2005;234:363-73. [PMID: 15670994].
19. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, Ljung BM, Ernster VL, Stewart K, et al. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1692-702. [PMID: 14625260].
20. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Manual for Staging of Cancer. 6th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 2002.
21. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, et al; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP). Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: The NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2727-41. [PMID: 16754727].
22. Carney PA, Sickles EA, Monsees BS, Bassett LW, Brenner RJ, Feig SA, et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology. 2010;255: 354-61. [PMID: 20413750] doi:10.1148/radiol.10091636.
23. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13-22.
24. Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26:404-13.
25. Saadatmand S, Rutgers EJ, Tollenaar RA, Zonderland HM, Ausems MG, Keymeulen KB, et al. Breast density as indicator for the use of mammography or MRI to screen women with familial risk for breast cancer (FaMRIsc): A multicentre randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:440. [PMID: 23031619] doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-440.
26. Kerlikowske K, Cook AJ, Buist DS, Cummings SR, Vachon C, Vacek P, et al. Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28: 3830-7. [PMID: 20644098] doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.4770.
27. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al; ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012; 307:1394-404. [PMID: 22474203] doi:10.1001/jama.2012.388.
28. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:335. [PMID: 19765317] doi:10.1186/1471-2407-9-335.
29. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265:59-69. [PMID: 22723501].
30. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The Connecticut experiment: The role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J. 2012;18:517-22. [PMID: 23009208] doi:10.1111/tbj.12003.
31. Parris T, Wakefield D, Frimmer H. Real world performance of screening breast ultrasound following enactment of Connecticut Bill 458. Breast J. 2013;19:64-70. [PMID: 23240937] doi:10.1111/tbj.12053.
32. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168- 75. [PMID: 12558355] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008.
33. Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, Geller B, Dittus K, Braithwaite D, et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:807-16. [PMID: 23552817] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.307.
34. Bertrand KA, Tamimi RM, Scott CG, Jensen MR, Pankratz V, Visscher D, et al. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15:R104. [PMID: 24188089] doi:10.1186/bcr3570.
35. Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Collins LC, Schnitt SJ, Rosner B, Vachon C, et al. Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1179-89. [PMID: 21795664] doi:10.1093/jnci/djr225.
36. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481-92. [PMID: 22007042] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00004.
37. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013; 269:694-700. [PMID: 23901124] doi:10.1148/radiol.13130307.
38. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: Results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266:104-13. [PMID: 23169790] doi:10.1148/radiol.12120674.
39. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47-56. [PMID: 23297332] doi:10.1148/radiol.12121373.
40. McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, Tan KS, Heitjan DF, Schnall M, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106. [PMID: 25313245] doi:10.1093/jnci/dju316.
41. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311:2499 -507. [PMID: 25058084] doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6095.
42. Antoni S, Sasco AJ, dos Santos Silva I, McCormack V. Is mammographic density differentially associated with breast cancer according to receptor status? A meta- Analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;137:337-47. [PMID: 23239150] doi:10.1007/s10549-012-2362-4.