Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of surveillance mammography outcomes in women with a personal history of breast cancer

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To identify predictors of poor mammography surveillance outcomes based on clinico-pathologic features.

Methods

This study was HIPAA compliant and IRB approved. We performed an electronic medical record review for a cohort of women with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage I or II invasive breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy who developed subsequent in-breast treatment recurrence (IBTR) or contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Poor surveillance outcome was defined as second breast cancer not detected by surveillance mammography, including interval cancers (diagnosed within 365 days of surveillance mammogram with negative results) and clinically detected cancers (diagnosed without a surveillance mammogram in the preceding 365 days). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify predictors of poor mammography surveillance outcome, including patient and primary tumor characteristics, breast density, mode of primary tumor detection, and time to second cancer diagnosis.

Results

164 women met inclusion criteria (65 with IBTR, 99 with CBC); 124 had screen-detected second cancers. On univariate analysis, poor surveillance outcome (n = 40) was associated with age at primary cancer diagnosis < 50 years (p < 0.0001), AJCC stage II primary cancers (p = 0.007), and heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts (p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis, age < 50 years at primary breast cancer diagnosis remained a significant predictor of poor surveillance outcome (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Women younger than age 50 at primary breast cancer diagnosis are at risk of poor surveillance mammography outcomes, and may be appropriate candidates for more intensive clinical and imaging surveillance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Bishop K, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (eds). SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2014, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2014/, based on November 2016 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2017

  2. Khatcheressian JL et al (2013) Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(7):961–965

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schnipper LE et al (2012) American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology. J Clin Oncol 30(14):1715–1724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2015) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer (version 3.2014). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2015

  5. Runowicz CD et al (2016) American Cancer Society/American Society of clinical oncology breast cancer survivorship care guideline. J Clin Oncol 34(6):611–635

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moy L et al (2016) ACR appropriateness criteria stage I breast cancer: initial workup and surveillance for local recurrence and distant metastases in asymptomatic women. J Am Coll Radiol 13(11S):e43–e52

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lu WL et al (2009) Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 114(3):403–412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Houssami N et al (2009) Early detection of second breast cancers improves prognosis in breast cancer survivors. Ann Oncol 20(9):1505–1510

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Houssami N et al (2011) Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 305(8):790–799

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Houssami N et al (2013) Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 22(5):946–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lehman CD et al (2017) National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the breast cancer surveillance consortium. Radiology 283(1):49–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sorlie T et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldhirsch A et al (2011) Strategies for subtypes–dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22(8):1736–1747

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Coates AS et al (2015) Tailoring therapies–improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2015. Ann Oncol 26(8):1533–1546

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reis-Filho JS, Pusztai L (2011) Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: classification, prognostication, and prediction. Lancet 378(9805):1812–1823

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sotiriou C, Pusztai L (2009) Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 360(8):790–800

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds) (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, France

    Google Scholar 

  18. Arvold ND et al (2011) Age, breast cancer subtype approximation, and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol 29(29):3885–3891

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Braunstein LZ et al (2015) Outcome following local-regional recurrence in women with early-stage breast cancer: impact of biologic subtype. Breast J 21(2):161–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

  21. D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM et al (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS—breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

  22. Cho N, Han W, Han B, Bae MS, Ko ES, Nam SJ, Chae EY, Lee JW, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Song BJ, Kim E, Moon HJ, Kim SI, Kim SM, Kang E, Choi Y, Kim HH, Moon WK (2017) Breast cancer screening with mammography plus ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging in women 50 years or younger at diagnosis and treated with breast conservation therapy. JAMA Oncol 3(11), 1495–1502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wirtz HS et al (2014) Factors associated with long-term adherence to annual surveillance mammography among breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 143(3):541–550

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Domingo L et al (2014) Tumor phenotype and breast density in distinct categories of interval cancer: results of population-based mammography screening in Spain. Breast Cancer Res 16(1):R3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Caldarella A et al (2013) Biological characteristics of interval cancers: a role for biomarkers in the breast cancer screening. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 139(2):181–185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wedam SB, Swain SM (2005) Contralateral breast cancer: where does it all begin? J Clin Oncol 23(21):4585–4587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Swain SM et al (2004) Estrogen receptor status of primary breast cancer is predictive of estrogen receptor status of contralateral breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(7):516–523

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Huo D et al (2011) Concordance in histological and biological parameters between first and second primary breast cancers. Cancer 117(5):907–915

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brown M, Bauer K, Pare M (2010) Tumor marker phenotype concordance in second primary breast cancer, California, 1999–2004. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120(1):217–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Arpino G et al (2005) Hormone receptor status of a contralateral breast cancer is independent of the receptor status of the first primary in patients not receiving adjuvant tamoxifen. J Clin Oncol 23(21):4687–4694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee JM et al (2015) Five-year risk of interval-invasive second breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 107(7)

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a Resident Research Grant from the Radiological Society of North America (KPL).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Kathryn P. Lowry & Janie M. Lee

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Lior Z. Braunstein

  3. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Konstantinos P. Economopoulos

  4. Department of Internal Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

    Laura Salama

  5. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Constance D. Lehman, G. Scott Gazelle & Elkan F. Halpern

  6. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Catherine S. Giess

  7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Alphonse G. Taghian

  8. Division of Breast Imaging, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave. E., Suite G2-600, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA

    Kathryn P. Lowry

Authors
  1. Kathryn P. Lowry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lior Z. Braunstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Konstantinos P. Economopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Salama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Constance D. Lehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Scott Gazelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elkan F. Halpern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Catherine S. Giess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alphonse G. Taghian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Janie M. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn P. Lowry.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

EH is a research consultant for Hologic, Inc. and Real Imaging Ltd. GSG is a consultant for General Electric Healthcare. CDL serves on the Research Grant and Advisory Board for General Electric Healthcare. AGT is a consultant for VisionRT. JML receives a Research Grant from General Electric Company.

Ethical approval

This study complies with U.S. law. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lowry, K.P., Braunstein, L.Z., Economopoulos, K.P. et al. Predictors of surveillance mammography outcomes in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 171, 209–215 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4808-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4808-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation