Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 128, Issue 1, pp 259–266 | Cite as

Age of diagnosis, tumor size, and survival after breast cancer: implications for mammographic screening

Epidemiology

Abstract

If mammographic screening is to be recommended to women aged <50, it is necessary that mammographic screening leads to the detection of small cancers and that the survival rate of young women with small cancers is superior to that of women with larger cancers. We reviewed the survival experience of 2,173 patients with invasive breast cancer. There were 392 cancer-specific deaths in the cohort after a mean of 8.9 years of follow-up. We estimated the effects of young age (age <50) of tumor size (in cm) and of mammogram detected (vs. palpable) on breast cancer survival in the cohort. Young age, tumor size >2 cm and tumor palpability were strong and independent predictors of breast cancer mortality in the cohort. The 10-year survival rate for young women with small mammogram-detected breast cancers (<1 cm) was 94%, compared to 86% for women with palpable cancers in the same size group (P < 0.01). Women with a small non-palpable breast cancer that is diagnosed through a mammogram experience very good survival, compared to women with a palpable breast cancer of similar size. Our findings suggest that mammography preferentially detects cancers with good prognosis and calls into question the assumption that detecting breast cancers when they are small by mammography will impact upon mortality from breast cancer.

Keywords

Breast cancer Prognostic factors Mammography Survivorship 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation (Ontario Chapter) for support of the Henrietta Banting Database. I thank Ellen Rawlinson and Adriana Valentini for maintaining the Banting database and I thank Ping Sun for statistical support.

References

  1. 1.
    Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ 147:1459–1476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ 147:1477–1488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nyström L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M, Rydén S, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J et al (1993) Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 341:973–978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nystrom L, Wall S, Rutqvist I et al (1997) Pdate of the overview of the Swedish randomised trials on breast cancer screening with mammography. NIH consensus development conference. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49. NIH Press, Bethesda, pp 65–69Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foulkes WD, Reis-Filho JS, Narod SA (2010) Size and survival in breast cancer: a reappraisal. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7:348–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rakha EA, Resios-Filho JS, Ellis IO (2008) Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 26:2568–2581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dent R, Hanna WM, Pritchard KI et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13:4429–4434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dent R, Hanna WM, Trudeau M, Rawlinson E, Sun P, Narod P (2009) Time to disease recurrence in basal type breast cancers: effects of tumor size and lymph node status. Cancer 115:4917–4923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foulkes WD, Grainge M, Rakha EA, Green AR, Ellis IO (2008) Tumor size is an unreliable predictor of prognosis in basal-like cancers and does not correlate closely with lymph node status. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans AJ, Rakha EA, Pinder SE, Green AR, Paish C, Ellis IO (2007) Basal phenotype: a powerful prognostic factor in small screen-detected invasive breast cancer with long-tem follow up. J Med Screen 14:210–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foulkes WD, Metcalfe K, Hanna W et al (2003) Disruption of the expected positive correlation between breast tumor size and lymph node status in BRCA1-related breast carcinoma. Cancer 98:1567–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rennert G, Busland-Naggan S, Barnett-Griness O et al (2007) Clinical outcomes of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 357:115–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Litton JK, Broglio KR, Meric-Bernstam F, Rakkhit R, Cardoso F, Peintinger F, Hanrahan EO, Sahin A, Guray M, Larsimont D, Feoli F, Stranzl H, Buchholz TA, Valero V, Theriault R, Piccart-Gebhart M, Ravdin PM, Berry DA, Hortobagyi GN (2009) High risk of recurrence for patients with breast cancer who have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, node-negative tumors 1 cm or smaller. J Clin Oncol 27:5700–5706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE (1989) Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 63:181–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO, Bégin LR, Goffin JR, Wong N, Trudel M, Akslen LA (2003) Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(19):1482–1485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Young SR, Pilarski RT, Donenberg T, Shapiro C, Hammond LS, Miller J, Brooks KA, Cohen S, Tenenholz B, Desai D, Zandvakili I, Royer R, Li S, Narod SA (2009) The prevalence of BRCA1 mutations among young women with triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 9:86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasay CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtype and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295:2492–2502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Narod SA (1997) On being the right size: a reappraisal of mammography trials in Canada and Sweden. Lancet 349:1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tabar L, Duffy S, Vitak B, Chen H-H, Prevost TC (1999) The natural history of breast carcinoma. What have we learned from screening? Cancer 86:449–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:10869–10874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zahl P-H, Moehlen J, Welch HG (2008) The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med 168:2311–2316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Welch HG (2009) Over diagnosis and mammography screening. Br Med J 339:182–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray MR et al (2002) Randomised trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. Natl Cancer Inst 94(19):1445–1457Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Women’s College Research InstituteWomen’s College HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations