Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp 871–879 | Cite as

Locally advanced breast cancers are more likely to present as Interval Cancers: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657, InterSPORE Trial)

  • Cheryl Lin
  • Meredith Becker Buxton
  • Dan Moore
  • Helen Krontiras
  • Lisa Carey
  • Angela DeMichele
  • Leslie Montgomery
  • Debasish Tripathy
  • Constance Lehman
  • Minetta Liu
  • Olufunmilayo Olapade
  • Christina Yau
  • Donald Berry
  • Laura J. Esserman
  • I-SPY TRIAL Investigators


Interval cancers (ICs), defined as cancers detected between regular screening mammograms, have been shown to be of higher grade, larger size, and associated with lower survival, compared with screen-detected cancers (SDCs) and comprise 17% of cancers from population-based screening programs. We sought to determine the frequency of ICs in a study of locally advanced breast cancers, the I-SPY 1 TRIAL. Screening was defined as having a mammogram with 2 years, and the proportion of ICs at 1 and 2 years was calculated for screened patients. Differences in clinical characteristics for ICs versus SDCs and screened versus non-screened cancers were assessed. For the 219 evaluable women, mean tumor size was 6.8 cm. Overall, 80% of women were over 40 and eligible for screening; however, only 31% were getting screened. Among women screened, 85% were ICs, with 68% diagnosed within 1 year of a previously normal mammogram. ICs were of higher grade (49% vs. 10%) than SDCs. Among non-screened women, 28% (43/152) were younger than the recommended screening age of 40. Of the entire cohort, 12% of cancers were mammographically occult (MO); the frequency of MO cancers did not differ between screened (11%) and non-screened (15%). ICs were common in the I-SPY 1 TRIAL suggesting the potential need for new approaches beyond traditional screening to reduce mortality in women who present with larger palpable cancers.


Screening Neoadjuvant Interval cancer 



National Cancer Institute Specialized Program of Research Excellence in Breast Cancer, American College of Radiology Imaging Network, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, National Cancer Institute Center for Bioinformatics, The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Bruce and Martha Atwater are acknowledged. Grant numbers: NCI SPORE: CA58207, ACRIN: U01 CA079778 & CA080098, CALGB: CA31964 & CA33601.


  1. 1.
    Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I (2009) Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 302(15):1685–1692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293(10):1245–1256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L, Force USPST (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 151(10):727–737, W237-742PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R (1982) Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 69(2):349–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, Ljungberg O, Ranstam J, Sigfusson B (1988) Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 297(6654):943–948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R, Mravunac M, Sturmans F, Day NE (1984) Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. First results of the Nijmegen project, 1975–1981. Lancet 1(8388):1222–1224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Waard F, Collette HJ, Rombach JJ, Baanders-van Halewijn EA, Honing C (1984) The DOM project for the early detection of breast cancer, Utrecht, The Netherlands. J Chronic Dis 37(1):1–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgard C, Janzon L, Linell F (1992) Interval carcinomas in the Malmo mammographic screening trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159(2):287–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bordas P, Jonsson H, Nystrom L, Lenner P (2009) Interval cancer incidence and episode sensitivity in the Norrbotten Mammography Screening Programme, Sweden. J Med Screen 16(1):39–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, Cousens L, White D, Taplin S, White E (1999) Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(23):2020–2028PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM, Hunt WC, Rosenberg R, Redlich G, Key CR (2000) Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(9):743–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeGroote R, Rush BF Jr, Milazzo J, Warden MJ, Rocko JM (1983) Interval breast cancer: a more aggressive subset of breast neoplasias. Surgery 94(4):543–547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heuser L, Spratt JS Jr, Polk HC Jr, Buchanan J (1979) Relation between mammary cancer growth kinetics and the intervals between screenings. Cancer 43(3):857–862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heuser L, Spratt JS, Polk HC Jr (1979) Growth rates of primary breast cancers. Cancer 43(5):1888–1894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peppercorn J, Perou CM, Carey LA (2008) Molecular subtypes in breast cancer evaluation and management: divide and conquer. Cancer Invest 26(1):1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cianfrocca M, Gradishar W (2009) New molecular classifications of breast cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 59(5):303–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Esserman L et al (2009) Poster session: Breast cancer molecular profiles and tumor response of neoadjuvant doxorubicin and paclitaxel: the I-SPY TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657). ASCO Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, May 29–31Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buxton ELMB (2005) The challenge of integrating information and improving care for breast cancer: The I SPY Trial informatics effort. In: Perry MC (ed) American society of clinical oncology. Lisa Greaves, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klemi PJ, Joensuu H, Toikkanen S, Tuominen J, Rasanen O, Tyrkko J, Parvinen I (1992) Aggressiveness of breast cancers found with and without screening. BMJ 304(6825):467–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schroen AA, Wobbes T, van der Sluis RF (1996) Interval carcinomas of the breast: a group with intermediate outcome. J Surg Oncol 63(3):141–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frisell J, von Rosen A, Wiege M, Nilsson B, Goldman S (1992) Interval cancer and survival in a randomized breast cancer screening trial in Stockholm. Breast Cancer Res Treat 24(1):11–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brekelmans CT, Peeters PH, Deurenberg JJ, Collette HJ (1995) Survival in interval breast cancer in the DOM screening programme. Eur J Cancer 31A(11):1830–1835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cowan WK, Angus B, Gray JC, Lunt LG, al-Tamimi SR (2000) A study of interval breast cancer within the NHS breast screening programme. J Clin Pathol 53(2):140–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taylor R, Page A, Bampton D, Estoesta J, Rickard M (2004) Age-specific interval breast cancers in New South Wales and meta-analysis of studies of women aged 40–49 years. J Med Screen 11(4):199–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barker AD, Sigman CC, Kelloff GJ, Hylton NM, Berry DA, Esserman LJ (2009) I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 86(1):97–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    I-SPY 2 TRIAL []
  28. 28.
    Granader EJ, Dwamena B, Carlos RC (2008) MRI and mammography surveillance of women at increased risk for breast cancer: recommendations using an evidence-based approach. Acad Radiol 15(12):1590–1595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, Cutrara MR, DeBoer G, Yaffe MJ, Messner SJ et al (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292(11):1317–1325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheryl Lin
    • 1
  • Meredith Becker Buxton
    • 1
  • Dan Moore
    • 2
  • Helen Krontiras
    • 3
  • Lisa Carey
    • 4
  • Angela DeMichele
    • 5
  • Leslie Montgomery
    • 6
  • Debasish Tripathy
    • 7
  • Constance Lehman
    • 8
  • Minetta Liu
    • 9
  • Olufunmilayo Olapade
    • 10
  • Christina Yau
    • 1
  • Donald Berry
    • 11
  • Laura J. Esserman
    • 1
  • I-SPY TRIAL Investigators
  1. 1.Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer CenterUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.UAB Medical Center, The Kirklin ClinicUniversity of Alabama, BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  4. 4.University of North Carolina, Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  5. 5.Center for Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  6. 6.Montefiore Medical GroupAlbert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA
  7. 7.Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and HospitalUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  8. 8.Seattle Cancer Care AllianceUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  9. 9.Georgetown University HospitalWashingtonUSA
  10. 10.Department of Medicine and Human GeneticsUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  11. 11.MD Anderson Cancer CenterUniversity of TexasHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations