Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, 18:3137 | Cite as

Potential Impact of USPSTF Recommendations on Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

  • Robert Aragon
  • John Morgan
  • Jan H. Wong
  • Sharon LumEmail author
American Society of Breast Surgeons

Abstract

Objective

Current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommend against routine screening mammography in women aged 40–49 years. However, diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer relies on mammographic screening for detection. We hypothesized that screening at younger age may be important for detecting earlier and more treatable cancers for women in different demographic groups.

Methods

All women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or T1N0 breast cancer between 2004 and 2008 in the California Cancer Registry were evaluated. Patients were divided into: (1) women aged 40–49 years, who would be excluded from USPSTF recommendations for screening, and (2) women aged 50–74 years, who are recommended for screening. Patients in the two age groups were compared by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and hormone receptor (HR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2), and triple-negative (TN) status.

Results

Of 46,691 patients identified, 22.6% were aged 40–49 years, and 77.4% were aged 50–74 years. Younger women with DCIS had statistically higher odds of being HR positive and having higher SES, and Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander (PI) race/ethnicity, while younger women diagnosed with T1N0 breast cancer had higher odds of being HR positive, HER-2 positive, and triple negative and of having higher SES and non-white race/ethnicity.

Conclusions

Young Hispanic, Asian/PI, and non-Hispanic (NH) Black women in California have greater odds of being diagnosed with early breast cancer than their older counterparts. Excluding 40–49-year-old women from screening could impact early diagnosis of HR-positive, HER-2-positive, and TN tumors. Implementation of USPSTF recommendations could disproportionately impact non-white women and potentially lead to more advanced presentation at diagnosis.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Breast Cancer Mortality Screen Mammography United States Preventive Service Task Force California Cancer Registry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported in part by NCI/SEER contracts no. N01-PC-35136, N01-PC-35139, and N02-PC-15105, CDC/National Program for Cancer Registries contract no. U58DP000807- 01, and the California Department of Public Health, Cancer Surveillance Branch.

References

  1. 1.
    Altekruse SF KC, Krapcho M, et al. (eds) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2007, based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2010. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. 2010. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/. Accessed 1 April, 2011.
  2. 2.
    Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):738–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359(9310):909–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cady B, Michaelson JS, Chung MA. The “tipping point” for breast cancer mortality decline has resulted from size reductions due to mammographic screening. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(4):903–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Virnig BA, Wang SY, Shamilyan T, Kane RL, Tuttle TM. Ductal carcinoma in situ: risk factors and impact of screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;(41):113–16.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hofer BM KS, Allen M, Bates JH, Snipes KP. Cancer in california 1988–2007. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health, Cancer Surveillance Section.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH (2004) The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 42(5):793–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368(9552):2053–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716–26, W-236.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newman LA. Breast cancer in African–American women. Oncologist. 2005;10(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newman LA, Griffith KA, Jatoi I, Simon MS, Crowe JP, Colditz GA. Meta-analysis of survival in African American and white American patients with breast cancer: ethnicity compared with socioeconomic status. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(9):1342–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, Morris C, Wright W. Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12(8):703–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olaya W, Wong J, Morgan J, et al. Factors associated with variance in compliance with a sentinel lymph node dissection quality measure in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(0):297–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olaya W, Wong JH, Morgan JW, Roy-Chowdhury S, Lum SS. Disparities in the surgical management of women with stage I breast cancer. Am Surg. 2009;75(10):869–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mook S, Van’t Veer LJ, Rutgers EJ, et al. Independent prognostic value of screen detection in invasive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(7):585–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smart CR, Byrne C, Smith RA, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of the breast cancers diagnosed during the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997;47(3):134–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shen Y, Yang Y, Inoue LY, Munsell MF, Miller AB, Berry DA. Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(16):1195–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wishart GC, Greenberg DC, Britton PD, et al. Screen-detected versus symptomatic breast cancer: is improved survival due to stage migration alone? Br J Cancer. 2008;98(11):1741–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 151(10):727–37, W237–742.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kopans DB. The 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines are not supported by science: the scientific support for mammography screening. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010;48(5):843–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):W112–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miranda PY, Wilkinson AV, Etzel CJ, et al. Policy implications of early onset breast cancer among Mexican-origin women. Cancer. 2011;117(2):390–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Risendal B, Hines LM, Sweeney C, et al. Family history and age at onset of breast cancer in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(10):1349–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Innos K, Horn-Ross PL. Recent trends and racial/ethnic differences in the incidence and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in California women. Cancer. 2003;97(4):1099–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    U.S. Census Bureau (2010). http://2010.census.gov/2010census/ Accessed 1 April, 2011.
  27. 27.
    Nassar H, Sharafaldeen B, Visvanathan K, Visscher D. Ductal carcinoma in situ in African American versus Caucasian American women: analysis of clinicopathologic features and outcome. Cancer. 2009;115(14):3181–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hofer BM KS, Allen M, Bates JH, McCusker ME, Snipes KP. Cancer in California, 2008, special highlight on cancer by race and ethnicity. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health, Cancer Surveillance Section.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Lurie N, et al. Does utilization of screening mammography explain racial and ethnic differences in breast cancer? Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(8):541–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hahn KM, Bondy ML, Selvan M, et al. Factors associated with advanced disease stage at diagnosis in a population-based study of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(9):1035–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wells BL, Horm JW. Stage at diagnosis in breast cancer: race and socioeconomic factors. Am J Public Health. 1992;82(10):1383–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bradley CJ, Given CW, Roberts C. Race, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer treatment and survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(7):490–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parise CA, Bauer KR, Brown MM, Caggiano V. Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999-2004. Breast J. 2009;15(6):593–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2492–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Health and Safety Code Section 103875–103885. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=103001-104000&file=103875-103885. Accessed 4 June, 2011.

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Aragon
    • 1
  • John Morgan
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jan H. Wong
    • 4
  • Sharon Lum
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical OncologyLoma Linda University School of MedicineLoma LindaUSA
  2. 2.School of Public HealthLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaUSA
  3. 3.Desert Sierra Cancer Surveillance ProgramLoma Linda University Medical CenterLoma LindaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Brody School of MedicineEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations