Skip to main content

Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35–39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02)

Abstract

Although there have been encouraging recent studies showing a potential benefit from annual mammography in women aged 40–49 years of age with an elevated breast cancer risk due to family history there is little evidence of efficacy in women aged <40 years of age. A prospective study (FH02) has been developed to assess the efficacy of mammography screening in women aged 35–39 years of age with a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥17 % who are not receiving MRI screening. Retrospective analyses from five centres with robust recall systems identified 47 breast cancers (n = 12 in situ) with an interval cancer rate of 15/47 (32 %). Invasive tumour size, lymph node status and current vital status were all significantly better than in two control groups of unscreened women (including those with a family history) recruited to the POSH study. Further evaluation of the prospective arm of FH02 is required to assess the potential added value of digital mammography and the cancer incidence rates in moderate and high risk women in order to inform cost effectiveness analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    McIntosh A, Shaw C, Evans G, et al (2006) Clinical guidelines and evidence review for the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer, National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care/University of Sheffield, London. NICE guideline CG041. www.nice.org.uk

  2. 2.

    Mackay J, Rogers C, Fielder H et al (2001) Development of a protocol for evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women under 50 with a family history of breast cancer. J Epidemiol Biostat 6:365–369

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    FH01 management committee, steering committee and collaborators (2006) The challenge of evaluating annual mammography screening for young women with a family history of breast cancer. J Med Screen 13:177–182

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    FH01 collaborative teams (2010) Mammographic surveillance in women younger than 50 years who have a family history of breast cancer: tumour characteristics and projected effect on mortality in the prospective, single-arm, FH01 study. Lancet Oncol 11:1127–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wald NJ, Murphy P, Major P et al (1995) UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. BMJ 311:1189–1193

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK et al (2005) Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365:1769–1778

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG et al (2008) Single reading with computer aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359:1675–1684

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L, Trial Management Group (2006) Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 368:2053–2060

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Law J, Faulkner K, Young KC (2007) Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol 80(952):261–266

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Maurice A, Evans DGR, Shenton A, Boggis C, Wilson M, Duffy S, Howell A (2006) The screening of women aged less than 50 years at increased risk of breast cancer by virtue of their family history. Eur J Cancer 42:1385–1390

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Maurice A, Evans DG, Affen J, Greenhalgh R, Duffy SW, Howell A (2012) Surveillance of women at increased risk of breast cancer using mammography and clinical breast examination: further evidence of benefit. Int J Cancer 131:417–425

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Eccles D, Gerty S, Simmonds P, Hammond V, Ennis S, Altman DG, POSH steering group (2007) Prospective study of outcomes in sporadic versus hereditary breast cancer (POSH): study protocol. BMC Cancer 7:160

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1994) Autosomal dominant inheritance of early onset breast cancer. Cancer 73:643–651

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J (2004) A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 23:1111–1130

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A et al (2003) Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet 40:807–814

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Eccles DM, Evans DGR, Mackay J (2000) Guidelines for a genetic risk based approach to advising women with a family history of breast cancer. J Med Genet 37:203–209

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Pharoah P, Day NE, Duffy S et al (1997) Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 71:800–809

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Day NE, Walter SD (1984) Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: estimation procedures from mass screening programmes. Biometrics 43:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Day N, McCann J, Camilleri-Ferrante C et al (1995) Monitoring interval cancers in breast screening programmes: the east Anglian experience. Quality assurance management group of the east anglian breast screening programme. Med Screen 2:180–185

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Paci E, Warwick J, Falini P, Duffy SW (2004) Overdiagnosis in screening: is the increase in breast cancer incidence rates a cause for concern? J Med Screen 11:23–27

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Brain K, Henderson BJ, Tyndel S, Bankhead C, Watson E, Clements A, Austoker J, PIMMS Study Management Group (2008) Predictors of breast cancer-related distress following mammography screening in younger women on a family history breast screening programme. Psychooncology 17:1180–1188

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Moss S, Waller M, Anderson TJ, Cuckle H, Trial Management Group (2005) Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures. Br J Cancer. 92:955–960

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW et al (1997) The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer 80:2091–2099

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Paci E, Duffy SW (1991) Modelling the analysis of breast cancer screening programmes: sensitivity, lead time and predictive value in the Florence District Programme (1975–1986). Int J Epidemiol 20:852–858

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Norman RP, Evans DG, Easton DF, Young KC (2007) The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30–49. Eur J Health Econ 8:137–144

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Taylor L, Basro S, Apffelstaedt JP, Baatjes K (2011) Time for a re-evaluation of mammography in the young? Results of an audit of mammography in women younger than 40 in a resource restricted environment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:99–106

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Nyström L, Jonsson H (2012) Overdiagnosis in the population-based service screening programme with mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years in Sweden. J Med Screen 19:14–19

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Breast Cancer Campaign for funding the FH02 study. Prof Gareth Evans is an NIHR senior investigator.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. G. Evans.

Additional information

Please see the “Appendix” section for FH02 study group authors.

Appendix

Appendix

FH02 study group authors

Airedale NHS Foundation Trust Eleanor Waldron  
Ardmillan Screening Centre, Edinburgh Dr Lesley Smart Lynda Luke
Birmingham Mrs Simerjit Rai  
Bradford Dr Richard Linforth  
BTW Cardiff Guy Stevens Jane Evans
BTW Llandudno Guy Stevens Jane Evans
BTW Singleton Guy Stevens Jane Evans
Burton, Queen’s Hospital Dr Nick Luft None
Chester Ms Hollie Devlin  
Craigavon Area Hospital, Northern Ireland Dr Cathy Farnon Ruth Hall
Derby Wendy Chorley Diana Mayor
Great Ormond Street/Barts Dr Vian Salih  
Grantham District Hospital Mr N Potdar Mr A Modi
Hope Hospital, Salford Joy Hunter  
Kettering Mr Mohammed Rashed  
Leeds Mr Philip Turton Mrs Sue Hartup
Leicester Dr Julian Barwell  
Leighton Hospital, Crewe Tracey Hale  
Newcastle Dr Alex Henderson Irene Jobson
Northwick Park Hospital Mr William Teh  
Nottingham Mr R.D Macmillan  
Pilgrim Hospital Boston Lincs Mr N Potdar Mrs Ambika Anand
Portsmouth Carmel Sheppard  
Royal Devon & Exeter Di Cameron Mary Davies
Royal Liverpool University Hospital Sue Holcombe Laura Francis
Royal Marsden Hospital, London Mr Gerald Gui Dr Janet Self
Royal United Hospital, Bath Dr Diana Dalgliesh Katherine Knight
Southend Mr Neil Rothnie  
Truro Dr D Christensen  
Ulster Dr Janet Newell Ethna McFerran
University Hospital of South Manchester Rosemary Greenhalgh Jenny Affen
University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust Celia Lewis  
Whiston Hospital, Prescot, Merseyside Riccardo Audisio  

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evans, D.G., Thomas, S., Caunt, J. et al. Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35–39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02). Familial Cancer 13, 13–21 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-013-9661-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Screening
  • Mammography
  • MRI
  • BRCA1
  • BRCA2
  • High-risk