© 2005 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE |
Role of Detection Method in Predicting Breast Cancer Survival: Analysis of Randomized Screening Trials
Affiliations of authors: Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX (YS, YY, MFM, DAB); Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (LYTI); Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada (ABM)
Correspondence to: Donald A. Berry, PhD, Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, Unit 447, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030 (e-mail: dberry{at}mdanderson.org).
Background: Screening mammography detects breast cancers earlier than those detected symptomatically, and so mammographically detected breast cancers tend to have better prognoses. The so-called stage shift that results from screen detection is subject to lead-time and length biases, and so earlier detection may not translate into longer survival. We used data from three large breast cancer screening trials—Health Insurance Plan (HIP) of New York and two Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Studies (CNBSS)—to investigate survival benefits of breast cancer screening beyond stage shift. We also address whether method of detection is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer. Methods: The HIP trial randomly assigned approximately 62 000 women to screening and control groups. The two CNBSS trial cohorts CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2 included a total of 44 970 women in the screening group and 44 961 in the control group. After adjusting for stage and other tumor characteristics in a Cox proportional hazards model, survival distributions were compared by method of breast cancer detection with both univariate and multivariable analyses. All P values are two-sided. Results: Breast cancers detected by screening mammography had a shift in stage distribution to earlier stages (for HIP, P<.001; for CNBSS-1, P = .03; and for CNBSS-2, P<.001). After adjusting for tumor size, lymph node status, and disease stage in a Cox proportional hazards model, method of detection was a statistically significant independent predictor of disease-specific survival. Patients with interval cancers had a 53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 100%) greater hazard of death from breast cancer than patients with screen-detected cancers, and patients with cancer in the control groups had a 36% (95% CI = 10% to 68%) greater hazard of death than patients with screen-detected cancer. Conclusion: There was an apparent survival benefit beyond stage shift for patients with screen-detected breast cancers compared with patients with breast cancers detected otherwise. Method of detection appears to be an important prognostic factor, even after adjusting for known tumor characteristics. This finding suggests that clinical trialists should routinely collect information about method of detection.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Find additional patient-related information at:
Correspondence about this Article
- Re: Role of Detection Method in Predicting Breast Cancer Survival: Analysis of Randomized Screening Trials
- Eugenio Paci, Antonio Ponti, Emanuele Crocetti, Marco Zappa, and Nereo Segnan
J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97: 1853-1854.[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Editorial about this Article
- Should Screen-detected Breast Cancers Be Managed Differently?
- Monika K. Krzyzanowska and Ian F. Tannock
J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97: 1170-1171.[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. Jatoi and W. F. Anderson Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis With Screening Mammography Arch Intern Med, May 25, 2009; 169(10): 999 - 1000. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. H. Ahern and Y. Shen Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mammography and Clinical Breast Examination Strategies: A Comparison with Current Guidelines Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2009; 18(3): 718 - 725. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. J. Goldstein, R. Gray, S. Badve, B. H. Childs, C. Yoshizawa, S. Rowley, S. Shak, F. L. Baehner, P. M. Ravdin, N. E. Davidson, et al. Prognostic Utility of the 21-Gene Assay in Hormone Receptor-Positive Operable Breast Cancer Compared With Classical Clinicopathologic Features J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2008; 26(25): 4063 - 4071. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Rakha, M. E. El-Sayed, A. H.S. Lee, C. W. Elston, M. J. Grainge, Z. Hodi, R. W. Blamey, and I. O. Ellis Prognostic Significance of Nottingham Histologic Grade in Invasive Breast Carcinoma J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2008; 26(19): 3153 - 3158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. P. Winer, J. R. Harris, B. L. Smith, H. A. D'Alessandro, and E. F. Brachtel Case 32-2007 -- A 62-Year-Old Woman with a Second Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., October 18, 2007; 357(16): 1640 - 1648. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Hartman, K. Czene, M. Reilly, J. Adolfsson, J. Bergh, H.-O. Adami, P. W. Dickman, and P. Hall Incidence and Prognosis of Synchronous and Metachronous Bilateral Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., September 20, 2007; 25(27): 4210 - 4216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Berry, L. Inoue, Y. Shen, J. Venier, D. Cohen, M. Bondy, R. Theriault, and M. F. Munsell Chapter 6: Modeling the Impact of Treatment and Screening on U.S. Breast Cancer Mortality: A Bayesian Approach J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 30 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Smith-Bindman, D. L. Miglioretti, N. Lurie, L. Abraham, R. B. Barbash, J. Strzelczyk, M. Dignan, W. E. Barlow, C. M. Beasley, and K. Kerlikowske Does utilization of screening mammography explain racial and ethnic differences in breast cancer? Ann Intern Med, April 18, 2006; 144(8): 541 - 553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Berry, C. Cirrincione, I. C. Henderson, M. L. Citron, D. R. Budman, L. J. Goldstein, S. Martino, E. A. Perez, H. B. Muss, L. Norton, et al. Estrogen-Receptor Status and Outcomes of Modern Chemotherapy for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer JAMA, April 12, 2006; 295(14): 1658 - 1667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. G. Baker, P. C. Gotzsche, P. Baglioni, D. W. Smith, M. W. Retsky, R. Demicheli, W. J.M. Hrushesky, D. A. Berry, S. K. Plevritis, and D. G. Fryback Screening and breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med., February 16, 2006; 354(7): 767 - 769. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. G Baker, B. S Kramer, M. McIntosh, B. H Patterson, Y. Shyr, and S. Skates Evaluating markers for the early detection of cancer: overview of study designs and methods Clinical Trials, February 1, 2006; 3(1): 43 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Paci, A. Ponti, E. Crocetti, M. Zappa, and N. Segnan Re: Role of Detection Method in Predicting Breast Cancer Survival: Analysis of Randomized Screening Trials J Natl Cancer Inst, December 21, 2005; 97(24): 1853 - 1854. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Shen and D. A. Berry RESPONSE: Re: Role of Detection Method in Predicting Breast Cancer Survival: Analysis of Randomized Screening Trials J Natl Cancer Inst, December 21, 2005; 97(24): 1854 - 1854. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Krzyzanowska and I. F. Tannock Should Screen-detected Breast Cancers Be Managed Differently? J Natl Cancer Inst, August 17, 2005; 97(16): 1170 - 1171. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|