© 1999 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 23, 2020-2028,
December 1, 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press
REPORTS |
Breast Tumor Characteristics as Predictors of Mammographic Detection: Comparison of Interval- and Screen-Detected Cancers
Affiliations of authors: P. L. Porter, Program in Cancer Biology, Division of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, and Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle; A. Y. El-Bastawissi, N. Khalid (Cancer Prevention Research Program, Division of Public Health Sciences), M. G. Lin, E. A. Watney, L. Cousens (Program in Cancer Biology), Division of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; M. T. Mandelson, Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, and Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle; D. White, Department of Radiology, Group Health Cooperative; S. Taplin, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, and Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle; E. White, Cancer Prevention Research Program, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington.
Correspondence to: Peggy L. Porter, M.D., Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Biology, C1-015, 1100 Fairview Ave., N., Seattle, WA 98109 (e-mail: pporter{at}fhcrc.org).
BACKGROUND: Although mammographic screening is useful for detecting early breast cancer, some tumors are detected in the interval between screening examinations. This study attempted to characterize fully the tumors detected in the two different manners. METHODS: Our study utilized a case-control design and involved a cohort of women undergoing mammographic screening within the defined population of a health maintenance organization (the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound). Women were classified as having "interval" or "interval-detected" cancers (n = 150) if their diagnosis was made within 24 months after a negative-screening mammogram or one that indicated a benign condition. Cancers were classified as "screen detected" (n = 279) if the diagnosis occurred after a positive assessment by screening mammography. Tumors from women in each group were evaluated for clinical presentation, histology, proliferative characteristics, and expression of hormone receptors, p53 tumor suppressor protein, and c-erbB-2 protein. RESULTS: Interval-detected cancers occurred more in younger women and were of larger tumor size than screen-detected cancers. In unconditional logistic regression models adjusted for age and tumor size, tumors with lobular (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.9-4.2) or mucinous (OR = 5.5; 95% CI = 1.5-19.4) histology, high proliferation (by either mitotic count [OR = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.5-5.7] or Ki-67 antigen expression [OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.3-4.1]), high histologic grade (OR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.2-4.0), high nuclear grade (OR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.0-3.7), or negative estrogen receptor status (OR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.0-3.1) were more likely to surface in the interval between screening examinations. Tumors with tubular histology (OR = 0.2; 95% CI = 0.0-0.8) or with a high percentage of in situ components (50%) (OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.2-1.2) were associated with an increased likelihood of screen detection. CONCLUSIONS: Our data from a large group of women in a defined population indicate that screening mammography may miss tumors of lobular or mucinous histology and some rapidly proliferating, high-grade tumors.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Sihto, J. Lundin, T. Lehtimaki, M. Sarlomo-Rikala, R. Butzow, K. Holli, L. Sailas, V. Kataja, M. Lundin, T. Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, et al. Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancers Detected in Mammography Screening and Outside of Screening Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2008; 14(13): 4103 - 4110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Weedon-Fekjaer, B. H Lindqvist, L. J Vatten, O. O Aalen, and S. Tretli Estimating mean sojourn time and screening sensitivity using questionnaire data on time since previous screening J Med Screen, June 1, 2008; 15(2): 83 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Dong, D. A. Berry, T. B. Bevers, S.-W. Kau, L. Hsu, R. L. Theriault, and Y. Shen Prognostic Role of Detection Method and Its Relationship with Tumor Biomarkers in Breast Cancer: The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2008; 17(5): 1096 - 1103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. T. Chlebowski, G. L. Anderson, D. S. Lane, A. K. Aragaki, T. Rohan, S. Yasmeen, G. Sarto, C. A. Rosenberg, F. A. Hubbell, and For the Women's Health Initiative Investigators Predicting Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women by Hormone Receptor Status J Natl Cancer Inst, November 21, 2007; 99(22): 1695 - 1705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. T. Chartier, C. I. Oddou, M. G. Laine, B. Ducarouge, C. A. Marie, M. R. Block, and M. R. Jacquier-Sarlin Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 2/Cyclin E Complex Is Involved in p120 Catenin (p120ctn) Dependent Cell Growth Control: A New Role for p120ctn in Cancer Cancer Res., October 15, 2007; 67(20): 9781 - 9790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. G. Glass, J. V. Lacey Jr, J. D. Carreon, and R. N. Hoover Breast Cancer Incidence, 1980 2006: Combined Roles of Menopausal Hormone Therapy, Screening Mammography, and Estrogen Receptor Status J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1152 - 1161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. M. Ravdin, K. A. Cronin, N. Howlader, C. D. Berg, R. T. Chlebowski, E. J. Feuer, B. K. Edwards, and D. A. Berry The Decrease in Breast-Cancer Incidence in 2003 in the United States N. Engl. J. Med., April 19, 2007; 356(16): 1670 - 1674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. F. Boyd, H. Guo, L. J. Martin, L. Sun, J. Stone, E. Fishell, R. A. Jong, G. Hislop, A. Chiarelli, S. Minkin, et al. Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., January 18, 2007; 356(3): 227 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Chiarelli, V. A. Kirsh, N. S. Klar, R. Shumak, R. Jong, E. Fishell, M. J. Yaffe, and N. F. Boyd Influence of patterns of hormone replacement therapy use and mammographic density on breast cancer detection. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2006; 15(10): 1856 - 1862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. F. Anderson and R. Matsuno Breast cancer heterogeneity: a mixture of at least two main types? J Natl Cancer Inst, July 19, 2006; 98(14): 948 - 951. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Kamangar, G. M. Dores, and W. F. Anderson Patterns of Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Prevalence Across Five Continents: Defining Priorities to Reduce Cancer Disparities in Different Geographic Regions of the World J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2006; 24(14): 2137 - 2150. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Collett, G. E. Eide, J. Arnes, I. M. Stefansson, J. Eide, A. Braaten, T. Aas, A. P. Otte, and L. A. Akslen Expression of Enhancer of Zeste Homologue 2 Is Significantly Associated with Increased Tumor Cell Proliferation and Is a Marker of Aggressive Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., February 15, 2006; 12(4): 1168 - 1174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Mouchawar, S. Taplin, L. Ichikawa, W. E. Barlow, A. M. Geiger, S. Weinmann, J. Gilbert, M. M. Manos, and M. U. Yood Late-Stage Breast Cancer Among Women With Recent Negative Screening Mammography: Do Clinical Encounters Offer Opportunity for Earlier Detection? J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, November 1, 2005; 2005(35): 39 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A. Khan, J. A. Wolfman, L. Segal, S. Benjamin, R. Nayar, E. L. Wiley, M. Bryk, and M. Morrow Ductal Lavage Findings in Women With Mammographic Microcalcifications Undergoing Biopsy Ann. Surg. Oncol., September 1, 2005; 12(9): 689 - 696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Shen, Y. Yang, L. Y. T. Inoue, M. F. Munsell, A. B. Miller, and D. A. Berry Role of Detection Method in Predicting Breast Cancer Survival: Analysis of Randomized Screening Trials J Natl Cancer Inst, August 17, 2005; 97(16): 1195 - 1203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Kavanagh, J. Cawson, G. B. Byrnes, G. G. Giles, G. Marr, B. Tong, D. M. Gertig, and J. L. Hopper Hormone Replacement Therapy, Percent Mammographic Density, and Sensitivity of Mammography Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2005; 14(5): 1060 - 1064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Collett, I. M. Stefansson, J. Eide, A. Braaten, H. Wang, G. E. Eide, S. O. Thoresen, W. D. Foulkes, and L. A. Akslen A Basal Epithelial Phenotype Is More Frequent in Interval Breast Cancers Compared with Screen Detected Tumors Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2005; 14(5): 1108 - 1112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Taplin, W. E. Barlow, M. Ulcickas-Yood, E. Westbrook, A. M. Geiger, K. Bischoff, and L. Ichikawa Re: Breast Cancer Screening Comes Full Circle J Natl Cancer Inst, March 16, 2005; 97(6): 461 - 461. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.-L. Urbain Breast cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy and health care policies Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 18, 2005; 172(2): 210 - 211. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Khan, E. L. Wiley, N. Rodriguez, C. Baird, R. Ramakrishnan, R. Nayar, M. Bryk, K. B. Bethke, V. L. Staradub, J. Wolfman, et al. Ductal Lavage Findings in Women With Known Breast Cancer Undergoing Mastectomy J Natl Cancer Inst, October 20, 2004; 96(20): 1510 - 1517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. M. Buist, P. L. Porter, C. Lehman, S. H. Taplin, and E. White Factors Contributing to Mammography Failure in Women Aged 40-49 Years J Natl Cancer Inst, October 6, 2004; 96(19): 1432 - 1440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. O'Regan Do Tumors Detected by Mammography Screening Have a Favorable Prognosis? JAMA, September 1, 2004; 292(9): 1062 - 1063. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Joensuu, T. Lehtimaki, K. Holli, L. Elomaa, T. Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, V. Kataja, A. Anttila, M. Lundin, J. Isola, and J. Lundin Risk for Distant Recurrence of Breast Cancer Detected by Mammography Screening or Other Methods JAMA, September 1, 2004; 292(9): 1064 - 1073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Banks, G. Reeves, V. Beral, D. Bull, B. Crossley, M. Simmonds, E. Hilton, S. Bailey, N. Barrett, P. Briers, et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study BMJ, August 28, 2004; 329(7464): 477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Malich, D. Sauner, C. Marx, M. Facius, T. Boehm, S. O. Pfleiderer, M. Fleck, and W. A. Kaiser Influence of Breast Lesion Size and Histologic Findings on Tumor Detection Rate of a Computer-aided Detection System Radiology, September 1, 2003; 228(3): 851 - 856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. C. ROQUE and T. C.S.S. ANDRE Mammography and Computerized Decision Systems: A Review Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2002; 980(1): 83 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations Radiology, October 1, 2002; 225(1): 165 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. E. Barlow, C. D. Lehman, Y. Zheng, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. C. Yankaskas, G. R. Cutter, P. A. Carney, B. M. Geller, R. Rosenberg, K. Kerlikowske, et al. Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, August 7, 2002; 94(15): 1151 - 1159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Taplin, C. M. Rutter, C. Finder, M. T. Mandelson, F. Houn, and E. White Screening Mammography: Clinical Image Quality and the Risk of Interval Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2002; 178(4): 797 - 803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. L. Schubert, L. Hsu, L. A. Cousens, J. Glogovac, S. Self, B. J. Reid, P. S. Rabinovitch, and P. L. Porter Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Array Analysis of Flow-Sorted Epithelial Cells from Frozen Versus Fixed Tissues for Whole Genome Analysis of Allelic Loss in Breast Cancer Am. J. Pathol., January 1, 2002; 160(1): 73 - 79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Narod and M.-P. Dube Re: Biologic Characteristics of Interval and Screen-Detected Breast Cancers J Natl Cancer Inst, January 17, 2001; 93(2): 151 - 151. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K.-A. Phillips RESPONSE: Re: Biologic Characteristics of Interval and Screen Detected Breast Cancers J Natl Cancer Inst, January 17, 2001; 93(2): 151a - 152a. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Kerlikowske, P. A. Carney, B. Geller, M. T. Mandelson, S. H. Taplin, K. Malvin, V. Ernster, N. Urban, G. Cutter, R. Rosenberg, et al. Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer Ann Intern Med, December 5, 2000; 133(11): 855 - 863. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. T. Mandelson, N. Oestreicher, P. L. Porter, D. White, C. A. Finder, S. H. Taplin, and E. White Breast Density as a Predictor of Mammographic Detection: Comparison of Interval- and Screen-Detected Cancers J Natl Cancer Inst, July 5, 2000; 92(13): 1081 - 1087. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Risk Factors Associated with Interval-Detected Cancer Journal Watch Women's Health, February 1, 2000; 2000(201): 21 - 21. [Full Text]
|
|