Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer
- PMID: 29435556
- PMCID: PMC5876894
- DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8549
Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer
Abstract
Importance: There is little evidence on population-based harms and benefits of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC).
Objective: To evaluate biopsy rates and yield in the 90 days following screening (mammography vs magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography) among women with and without a PHBC.
Design, setting, and participants: Observational cohort study of 6 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Population-based sample of 812 164 women undergoing screening, 2003 through 2013.
Exposures: A total of 2 048 994 digital mammography and/or breast MRI screening episodes (mammogram alone vs MRI with or without screening mammogram within 30 days).
Main outcomes and measures: Biopsy intensity (surgical greater than core greater than fine-needle aspiration) and yield (invasive cancer greater than ductal carcinoma in situ greater than high-risk benign greater than benign) within 90 days of a screening episode. We computed age-adjusted rates of biopsy intensity (per 1000 screening episodes) and biopsy yield (per 1000 screening episodes with biopsies). Outcomes were stratified by PHBC and by BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk among women without PHBC.
Results: We included 101 103 and 1 939 455 mammogram screening episodes in women with and without PHBC, respectively; MRI screening episodes included 3763 with PHBC and 4673 without PHBC. Age-adjusted core and surgical biopsy rates (per 1000 episodes) doubled (57.1; 95% CI, 50.3-65.1) following MRI compared with mammography (23.6; 95% CI, 22.4-24.8) in women with PHBC. Differences (per 1000 episodes) were even larger in women without PHBC: 84.7 (95% CI, 75.9-94.9) following MRI and 14.9 (95% CI, 14.7-15.0) following mammography episodes. Ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive biopsy yield (per 1000 episodes) was significantly higher following mammography compared with MRI episodes in women with PHBC (mammography, 404.6; 95% CI, 381.2-428.8; MRI, 267.6; 95% CI, 208.0-337.8) and nonsignificantly higher, but in the same direction, in women without PHBC (mammography, 279.3; 95% CI, 274.2-284.4; MRI, 214.6; 95% CI, 158.7-280.8). High-risk benign lesions were more commonly identified following MRI regardless of PHBC. Higher biopsy rates and lower cancer yield following MRI were not explained by increasing age or higher 5-year breast cancer risk.
Conclusions and relevance: Women with and without PHBC who undergo screening MRI experience higher biopsy rates coupled with significantly lower cancer yield findings following biopsy compared with screening mammography alone. Further work is needed to identify women who will benefit from screening MRI to ensure an acceptable benefit-to-harm ratio.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
Similar articles
-
MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Sep;181(3):619-26. doi: 10.2214/ajr.181.3.1810619. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. PMID: 12933450
-
Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.JAMA. 2011 Feb 23;305(8):790-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.188. JAMA. 2011. PMID: 21343578 Free PMC article.
-
Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1105-1113. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-2. Epub 2016 Jun 23. Lancet Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27345635
-
Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Jan. Report No.: 14-05201-EF-3. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Jan. Report No.: 14-05201-EF-3. PMID: 26866210 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Staging of breast cancer with ultrasound.Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2011 Aug;32(4):331-41. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2011.02.008. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2011. PMID: 21782123 Review.
Cited by
-
Rapid differentiation of estrogen receptor status in patient biopsy breast cancer aspirates with an optical nanosensor.bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2024 Apr 1:2024.03.29.587397. doi: 10.1101/2024.03.29.587397. bioRxiv. 2024. PMID: 38617252 Free PMC article. Preprint.
-
MR-contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) for follow-up of breast cancer patients: a "pros and cons" debate.Eur Radiol. 2024 Oct;34(10):6264-6270. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10684-w. Epub 2024 Mar 15. Eur Radiol. 2024. PMID: 38488968
-
Breast cancer: A review of risk factors and diagnosis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jan 19;103(3):e36905. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036905. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024. PMID: 38241592 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024 Feb 8;116(2):249-257. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djad201. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024. PMID: 37897090 Free PMC article.
-
Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023 Oct;201(3):461-470. doi: 10.1007/s10549-023-07007-w. Epub 2023 Jul 20. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023. PMID: 37470892 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(15):1685-1692. - PubMed
-
- Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998-2005. - PubMed
-
- Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, et al. . Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1615-1634. - PubMed
-
- Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):256-267. - PubMed
-
- Marmot MG. Sorting through the arguments on breast screening. JAMA. 2013;309(24):2553-2554. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
