Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Beneficial is Follow-Up Mammography in Elderly Breast Cancer Survivors?

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the rate of non-palpable cancer detection and benign biopsy rates for follow-up mammograms in elderly breast cancer survivors.

Methods

Women 80 years of age and older who underwent operation for ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer from 2005 to 2010 and who had at least 6 months of follow-up were identified from a single-institution, prospectively maintained, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant database. Patients with mammographic, other imaging, or palpable abnormalities were identified, and the results of their imaging studies and biopsies were reviewed. Number of locoregional recurrences, contralateral cancers, and benign biopsies were determined. Follow-up and survival data were recorded.

Results

Overall, 429 women with a mean age of 83.4 years were included. Mean follow-up was 50.0 months (range 6–113). Patients had a median of four follow-up mammograms (range 0–11). The 1466 mammograms detected 17 biopsy-proven cancers and generated 18 benign biopsies. In the 305 women who had had breast-conserving surgery, 18 (5.9 %) experienced local recurrence, 9 detected by mammography alone (mean size 1.2 cm) and 9 palpable (mean size 2.0 cm). Contralateral cancer developed in 4 (0.9 %) of the 429 patients, all detected on screening mammogram alone.

Conclusion

Overall, 13 non-palpable breast cancers were detected in 1466 mammograms (0.9 %). While these results are acceptable for screening programs in healthy populations, further study of the need for routine follow-up imaging in the elderly, and the appropriate interval, is needed to maximize resource utilization.

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. DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Siegel RL, Stein KD, Kramer JL, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):252–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertelsen L, Bernstein L, Olsen JH, Mellemkjaer L, Haile RW, Lynch CF, et al. Effect of systemic adjuvant treatment on risk for contralateral breast cancer in the Women’s Environment, Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(1):32–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, Esserman LJ, Grunfeld E, Halberg F, et al. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(7):961–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Houssami N, Ciatto S. Mammographic surveillance in women with a personal history of breast cancer: how accurate? How effective? Breast. 2010;19(6):439–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu WL, Jansen L, Post WJ, Bonnema J, Van de Velde JC, De Bock GH. Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(3):403–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Paszat L, Sutradhar R, Grunfeld E, Gainford C, Benk V, Bondy S, et al. Outcomes of surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a population-based case series. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(1):169–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, Struikmans H, Van den Bogaert W, Fourquet A, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(22):3259–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, Taylor C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9804):1707–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mannino M, Yarnold JR. Local relapse rates are falling after breast conserving surgery and systemic therapy for early breast cancer: can radiotherapy ever be safely withheld? Radiother Oncol. 2009;90(1):14–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6):478–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lash TL, Fox MP, Buist DS, Wei F, Field TS, Frost FJ, et al. Mammography surveillance and mortality in older breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3001–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Earle CC, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, Weeks JC. Quality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(8):1447–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB, Simard EP, Boscoe FP, Henley SJ, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(9):1290–314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Land LH, Dalton SO, Jorgensen TL, Ewertz M. Comorbidity and survival after early breast cancer. A review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012;81(2):196–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pierga JY, Girre V, Laurence V, Asselain B, Dieras V, Jouve M, et al. Characteristics and outcome of 1755 operable breast cancers in women over 70 years of age. Breast. 2004;13(5):369–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schonberg MA, Ramanan RA, McCarthy EP, Marcantonio ER. Decision making and counseling around mammography screening for women aged 80 or older. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(9):979–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. (eds). American Joint Committee on Cancer, Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2010:347–376.

  18. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Bellon JR, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, McCormick B, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2382–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kiderlen M, van de Water W, Bastiaannet E, de Craen AJ, Westendorp RG, van de Velde CJ, et al. Survival and relapse free period of 2926 unselected older breast cancer patients: a FOCUS cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39(1):42–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nichols HB, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lacey JV Jr, Rosenberg PS, Anderson WF. Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):1564–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):771–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Grunfeld E, Noorani H, McGahan L, Paszat L, Coyle D, van Walraven C, et al. Surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast. 2002;11(3):228–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fourquet A, Campana F, Zafrani B, Mosseri V, Vielh P, Durand JC, et al. Prognostic factors of breast recurrence in the conservative management of early breast cancer: a 25-year follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;17(4):719–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Galper S, Blood E, Gelman R, Abner A, Recht A, Kohli A, et al. Prognosis after local recurrence after conservative surgery and radiation for early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(2):348–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Walter LC, Schonberg MA. Screening mammography in older women: a review. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1336–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(13):1–170, v–vi.

  28. Bessen T, Karnon J. A patient-level calibration framework for evaluating surveillance strategies: a case study of mammographic follow-up after early breast cancer. Value Health. 2014;17(6):669–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van Ravesteyn NT, Stout NK, Schechter CB, Heijnsdijk EA, Alagoz O, Trentham-Dietz A, et al. Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(7):djv103.

  30. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YC, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–614.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement [published erratum appears. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(10):688, and Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(3):199–200]. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716–26, W-236.

Download references

Disclosures

This study was funded in part by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748 and presented in part as a poster at the 67th Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium (2014), Phoenix, AZ, March 12–15, 2014.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Kristen P. Massimino MD

  2. Breast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Maxine S. Jochelson MD

  3. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Imelda E. Burgan BA, Michelle Stempel MPH & Monica Morrow MD

Authors
  1. Kristen P. Massimino MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maxine S. Jochelson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Imelda E. Burgan BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michelle Stempel MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Monica Morrow MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Morrow MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Massimino, K.P., Jochelson, M.S., Burgan, I.E. et al. How Beneficial is Follow-Up Mammography in Elderly Breast Cancer Survivors?. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 3518–3523 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5301-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5301-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation