Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 158, Issue 1, pp 139–148 | Cite as

Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging and contralateral breast cancer occurrence among older women with ductal carcinoma in situ

  • Shi-Yi WangEmail author
  • Jessica B. Long
  • Brigid K. Killelea
  • Suzanne B. Evans
  • Kenneth B. Roberts
  • Andrea Silber
  • Cary P. Gross
Epidemiology

Abstract

Although preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect mammographically occult contralateral breast cancers (CBCs) among women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the impact of MRI on the incidence of subsequent CBC events is unclear. We examined whether MRI use decreases CBC occurrences and detection of invasive disease among women who develop a CBC. Utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare dataset, we assessed overall, synchronous (<6 months after primary cancer diagnosis), and subsequent (≥6 months after diagnosis, i.e., metachronous) CBC occurrence in women aged 67–94 years diagnosed with DCIS during 2004–2009, with follow-up through 2011. We applied a matched propensity score approach to compare the stage-specific incidence rate of CBC according to MRI use. Our sample consisted of 9166 beneficiaries, 1258 (13.7 %) of whom received preoperative MRI. After propensity score matching, preoperative MRI use was significantly associated with a higher synchronous CBC detection rate (108.6 vs. 29.7 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] = 3.65; p < .001) with no significant differences in subsequent CBC rate (6.7 vs. 6.8 per 1000 person-years; HR = 0.90; p = .71). The 6-year cumulative incidence of any CBC (in situ plus invasive) remained significantly higher among women undergoing MRI, compared with those not undergoing MRI (9 vs. 4 %, p < .001). Women undergoing MRI also had a higher incidence of invasive CBC (4 vs. 3 %, p = .04). MRI use resulted in an increased detection of synchronous CBC but did not prevent subsequent CBC occurrence, suggesting that many of the undetected CBC lesions may not become clinically evident.

Keywords

Ductal carcinoma in situ Magnetic resonance imaging Contralateral breast cancer occurrence Early detection Overdiagnosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The collection of the California cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract N01-PC-35136 awarded to the Northern California Cancer Center, contract N01-PC-35139 awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract N02-PC-15105 awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement #U55/CCR921930-02 awarded to the Public Health Institute. The authors of this report are responsible for its content. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and endorsement by the State of California, Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred. The authors acknowledge the efforts of the Applied Research Program, NCI; the Office of Research, Development and Information, CMS; Information Management Services (IMS), Inc.; and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER-Medicare database. The interpretation and reporting of the SEER-Medicare data are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Funding Sources

This investigation was supported by a Pilot Grant and a P30 Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG), both from Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Disclaimers

Dr. Gross receives support from Medtronic, Inc. and 21st Century Oncology. These sources of support were not used for any portion of the current manuscript. None of the other co-authors have conflicts to report.

Supplementary material

10549_2016_3858_MOESM1_ESM.doc (118 kb)
(DOC 118 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society (2010) Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2009–2010. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, p 4Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Virnig BA, Shamliyan T, Tuttle TM et al (2009) Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 185:1–549Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL et al (2006) Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853–a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol 24:3381–3387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD et al (2005) Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 11:382–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang SY, Virnig BA, Tuttle TM et al (2013) variability of preoperative breast MRI utilization among older women with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer. Breast J 19:627–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lehman CD, DeMartini W, Anderson BO et al (2009) Indications for breast MRI in the patient with newly diagnosed breast cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 7:193–201Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P et al (2008) Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:3248–3258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol 27:5640–5649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pilewskie M, Olcese C, Eaton A et al (2014) Perioperative breast MRI is not associated with lower locoregional recurrence rates in DCIS patients treated with or without radiation. Ann Surg Oncol 21:1552–1560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pilewskie M, Kennedy C, Shappell C et al (2013) Effect of MRI on the management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1522–1529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis KL, Barth RJ Jr, Gui J et al (2012) Use of MRI in preoperative planning for women with newly diagnosed DCIS: risk or benefit? Ann Surg Oncol 19:3270–3274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kropcho LC, Steen ST, Chung AP et al (2012) Preoperative breast MRI in the surgical treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 18:151–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang SY, Kuntz KM, Tuttle TM et al (2013) The association of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging and multiple breast surgeries among older women with early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138:137–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hollingsworth AB, Stough RG (2012) Multicentric and contralateral invasive tumors identified with pre-op MRI in patients newly diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast J 18:420–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dawood S, Broglio K, Gonzalez-Angulo AM et al (2008) Development of new cancers in patients with DCIS: the M.D. Anderson experience. Ann Surg Oncol 15:244–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lagios MD, Silverstein MJ (2008) Ductal carcinoma in situ: through a glass, darkly. Ann Surg Oncol 15:16–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Welch HG, Black WC (2010) Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:605–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seigneurin A, Francois O, Labarere J et al (2011) Overdiagnosis from non-progressive cancer detected by screening mammography: stochastic simulation study with calibration to population based registry data. BMJ 343:d7017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang SY, Long JB, Killelea BK et al (2016) Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging and contralateral breast cancer occurrence among older women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(4):321–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Overview of the SEER Program. http://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html. Accessed 25 Jan 2016
  22. 22.
    Broet P, de la Rochefordiere A, Scholl SM et al (1995) Contralateral breast cancer: annual incidence and risk parameters. J Clin Oncol 13(7):1578–1583PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vichapat V, Garmo H, Holmqvist M et al (2012) Tumor stage affects risk and prognosis of contralateral breast cancer: results from a large Swedish-population-based study. J Clin Oncol 30(28):3478–3485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bach PB, Guadagnoli E, Schrag D, et al (2002) Patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the SEER-Medicare database applications and limitations. Med Care 40:IV-19-25Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR et al (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Austin PC (2011) Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 10(2):150–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Austin PC (2009) Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 28:3083–3107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Austin PC (2010) Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol 172:1092–1097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E et al (2001) Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 54:387–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    D’Agostino RB Jr (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17(19):2265–2281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Coca-Perraillon M (2007) Local and global optimal propensity score matching. Paper 185-2007 presented at: SAS Global Forum 2007; April 16–19. Orlando. http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/forum2007/185-2007.pdf
  32. 32.
    Gierisch JM, Myers ER, Schmit KM et al (2014) Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Intern Med 160:484–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Houssami N, Turner R, Macaskill P, et al (2014) An individual person data meta-analysis of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol 10;32(5):392–401Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fancellu A, Turner RM, Dixon JM, Pinna A, Cottu P, Houssami N (2015) Meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Bri J Surg 102(8):883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P (2015) Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol 1(7):888–896CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hwang ES, Nelson H (2012) Reframing treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: could less be more? Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons. http://bulletin.facs.org/2012/06/reframing-treatment-for-ductal-carcinoma-in-situ-could-less-be-more/. Assessed 6 Oct 2015
  37. 37.
    Morrow M, Freedman G (2006) A clinical oncology perspective on the use of breast MR. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 14(3):363–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chronic Disease EpidemiologyYale University School of Public HealthNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) CenterYale Cancer Center and Yale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal MedicineYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  5. 5.Department of Therapeutic RadiologyYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  6. 6.Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations