Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging and contralateral breast cancer occurrence among older women with ductal carcinoma in situ
- 325 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDuctal carcinoma in situ Magnetic resonance imaging Contralateral breast cancer occurrence Early detection Overdiagnosis
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.
This investigation was supported by a Pilot Grant and a P30 Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG), both from Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center.
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.
- 1.American Cancer Society (2010) Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2009–2010. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, p 4Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 21.Overview of the SEER Program. http://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html. Accessed 25 Jan 2016
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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