Radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening a modeling study

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 164, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 205-214

  Miglioretti, Diana L ^a   Lange, Jane ^b   Van Den Broek, Jeroen J ^c   Lee, Christoph I ^d   Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T ^c   Ritley, Dominique ^e   Kerlikowske, Karla ^f   Fenton, Joshua J ^e   Melnikow, Joy ^e   De Koning, Harry J ^c   Hubbard, Rebecca A ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

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

^g UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION INDUCED NEOPLASM; UNITED STATES; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; PROCEDURES; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; RADIATION DOSAGE; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84958778653     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/M15-1241     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Preston DL, Mattsson A, Holmberg E, Shore R, Hildreth NG, Boice JD Jr. Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of eight cohorts. Radiat Res. 2002;158:220-35. [PMID: 12105993]
2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation; National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2006.
3. Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257:246-53. [PMID: 20736332] doi:10.1148/radiol.10100570
4. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258:98-105. [PMID: 21081671] doi:10.1148/radiol.10100655
5. Feig SA, Hendrick RE. Radiation risk from screening mammogra-phy of women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997: 119-24. [PMID: 9709287]
6. Harris RP, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, Barclay C, Vu MB, Kistler CE, et al. The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:281-5. [PMID: 24322781] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12745
7. 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
8. 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]
9. Elmore JG, Carney PA, Abraham LA, Barlow WE, Egger JR, Fosse JS, et al. The association between obesity and screening mammog-raphy accuracy. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1140-7. [PMID: 15159273]
10. Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:362-9. [PMID: 20093597] doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2114
11. Wells CL, Slanetz PJ, Rosen MP. Mismatch in breast and detector size during screening and diagnostic mammography results in increased patient radiation dose. Acad Radiol. 2014;21:99-103. [PMID: 24331271] doi:10.1016/j.acra.2013.10.005
12. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (ACR BI-RADS Atlas). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
13. 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]
14. Miglioretti DL, Zhu W, Kerlikowske K, Sprague BL, Onega T, Buist DS, et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1069-77. [PMID: 26501844] doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3084
15. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1432-40. [PMID: 15467032]
16. Tabá r L, Faberberg G, Day NE, Holmberg L. What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial. Br J Cancer. 1987;55:547-51. [PMID: 3606947]
17. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Gad A. Tumour development, histology and grade of breast cancers: prognosis and progression. Int J Cancer. 1996;66:413-9. [PMID: 8635853]
18. Tan SY, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Koning HJ, Boer R, Habbema JD. The MISCAN-Fadia continuous tumor growth model for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006:56-65. [PMID: 17032895]
19. Mandelblatt J, Cronin K, de Koning H, Miglioretti DL, Schechter C, Stout N. Collaborative Modeling of U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies. AHRQ Publication No. 14-05201-EF-4. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: 2015. Accessed at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/modeling-report-collaborative-modeling-of-us-breast-cancer-1/breast-cancer-screening1 on 2 September 2015.
20. 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
21. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Iulian Apostoaei A, Veiga LH, Rajara-man P, Thomas BA, Owen Hoffman F, et al. RadRAT: a radiation risk assessment tool for lifetime cancer risk projection. J Radiol Prot. 2012;32:205-22. [PMID: 22810503] doi:10.1088/0952-4746/32/3/205
22. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Blanks R, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. JAMA. 2003;290:2129-37. [PMID: 14570948]
23. Kemp Jacobsen K, Abraham L, Buist DS, Hubbard RA, O'Meara ES, Sprague BL, et al. Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39:656-63. [PMID: 26013768] doi:10.1016/j.canep.2015.05.004
24. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1384-93. [PMID: 13130114]
25. Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller BM. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1082-91. [PMID: 18664650] doi:10.1093/jnci/djn224
26. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figure 2015. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2015. Accessed at www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/index on 2 September 2015.
27. Yaffe MJ, Boone JM, Packard N, Alonzo-Proulx O, Huang SY, Peressotti CL, et al. The myth of the 50-50 breast. Med Phys. 2009; 36:5437-43. [PMID: 20095256]
28. Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Rofo. 2012;184:911-8. [PMID: 22711250]
29. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Trends in Mammography Dose and Image Quality 1974-2009. 2015. Accessed at www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandards ActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm326264.htm on 4 May 2015.
30. Robinson M, Kotre CJ. Trends in compressed breast thickness and radiation dose in breast screening mammography. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:214-8. [PMID: 18270295] doi:10.1259/bjr/90916004
31. Hardesty LA, Kreidler SM, Glueck DH. Digital breast tomosynthe-sis utilization in the United States: a survey of physician members of the Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:594-9. [PMID: 24713501] doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.11.025
32. Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast. 2015;24: 93-9. [PMID: 25554018] doi:10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002
33. Feng SS, Sechopoulos I. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology. 2012;263:35-42. [PMID: 22332070] doi:10.1148/radiol.11111789
34. Lee CI, Lehman CD. Digital breast tomosynthesis and the challenges of implementing an emerging breast cancer screening technology into clinical practice. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:913-7. [PMID: 24295940] doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.09.010
35. 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
36. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:1401-8. [PMID: 23701081] doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9672
37. 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
38. 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
39. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomos-ynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:583-9. [PMID: 23623721] doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7
40. 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
41. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:687-93. [PMID: 24918774] doi:10.2214/AJR.14.12642
42. Kerlikowske K, Walker R, Miglioretti DL, Desai A, Ballard-Barbash R, Buist DS. Obesity, mammography use and accuracy, and advanced breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1724-33. [PMID: 19033562] doi:10.1093/jnci/djn388