Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 3385–3391 | Cite as

Utility of Clinical Breast Examinations in Detecting Local–Regional Breast Events After Breast-Conservation in Women with a Personal History of High-Risk Breast Cancer

  • Heather B. NeumanEmail author
  • Jessica R. Schumacher
  • Amanda B. Francescatti
  • Taiwo Adesoye
  • Stephen B. Edge
  • Elizabeth S. Burnside
  • David J. Vanness
  • Menggang Yu
  • Yajuan Si
  • Dan McKellar
  • David P. Winchester
  • Caprice C. Greenberg
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Although breast cancer follow-up guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical examinations, prior studies suggest a small fraction of local–regional events occurring after breast conservation are detected by examination alone. Our objective was to examine how local–regional events are detected in a contemporary, national cohort of high-risk breast cancer survivors.

Methods

A stage-stratified sample of stage II/III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006–2007 (n = 11,099) were identified from 1217 facilities within the National Cancer Data Base. Additional data on local–regional and distant breast events, method of event detection, imaging received, and mortality were collected. We further limited the cohort to patients with breast conservation (n = 4854). Summary statistics describe local–regional event rates and detection method.

Results

Local–regional events were detected in 5.5 % (n = 265) of patients. Eighty-three percent were ipsilateral or contralateral in-breast events, and 17 % occurred within ipsilateral lymph nodes. Forty-eight percent of local–regional events were detected on asymptomatic breast imaging, 29 % by patients, and 10 % on clinical examination. Overall, 0.5 % of the 4854 patients had a local–regional event detected on examination. Examinations detected a higher proportion of lymph node events (8/45) compared with in-breast events (18/220). No factors were associated with method of event detection.

Discussion

Clinical examinations, as an adjunct to screening mammography, have a modest effect on local–regional event detection. This contradicts current belief that examinations are a critical adjunct to mammographic screening. These findings can help to streamline follow-up care, potentially improving follow-up efficiency and quality.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Breast Cancer Survivor Screening Mammography Digital Mammography Digital Breast Tomosynthesis 
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

Acknowledgments

The statements presented in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee. This study would not have been possible without the commitment of the CoC, and particularly the dedication of the Registrars and Cancer Liaison Physicians of the participating CoC institutions. Members of the Alliance ACS: Clinical Research Program Cancer Care Delivery Research PCORI Breast Cancer Surveillance Working Group include Caprice Greenberg, MD, MPH; Heather Neuman, MD, MS; Taiwo Adesoye, MD; Nicole Brys, MPH; Jeffrey Havlena; Jessica Schumacher, PhD; Menggang Yu, PhD; Yajuan Si, PhD; Ying Zhang; Elizabeth Jacobs, MD, MAPP; David Vanness, PhD; Elizabeth Burnside, MD, MPH, MS; Karla Ballman, PhD; Patrick Gavin, RPh; Bettye Green, RN; Jane Perlmutter, PhD, MBA; Patricia Spears; Stephen Edge MD, FACS; David Winchester, MD, FACS; Amanda Francescatti; Elizabeth Berger, MD; Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH; Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH; Ann Partridge, MD, MPH; Ronald Chen, MD, MPH; Kathryn Ruddy, MD; George Chang, MD; and Benjamin Kozower, MD, MPH.

Funding

Research reported in this manuscript was funded through a PCORI Award (CE-1304-6543). Further funding came from the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health Scholar Program (NIH K12 HD055894).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Greenberg has an advisory role for Johnson and Johnson, and has received research funding from Covidien (unrelated work). Dr. Vanness receives consulting fees from Evidera. Heather Neuman, Jessica Schumacher, Amanda Francescatti, Taiwo Adesoye, Stephen Edge, Elizabeth Burnside, Menggang Yu, Yajuan Si, Dan McKellar, and David Winchester have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):252–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(7):961–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. v.1.2016. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2016.
  4. 4.
    Neuman HB, Steffens NM, Jacobson N, et al. Oncologists’ perspectives of their roles and responsibilities during multi-disciplinary breast cancer follow-up. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(3):708–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neuman HB, Steffens N, Tevaarwerk AJ, Jacobson N, Smith MA, Greenberg CC. Oncologists’ priorities for breast cancer follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(Suppl):abstr e20602.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neuman HB, Weiss JM, Schrag D, et al. Patient demographic and tumor characteristics influencing oncologist follow-up frequency in older breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(13):4128–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neuman HB, Schumacher JR, Schneider DF, et al. Determinants of the type of oncologists providing breast cancer follow-up. In: Society of Surgical Oncology 68th annual symposium, Houston, TX, 25–28 March 2015.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(2):117–28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Sangen MJ, Scheepers SW, Poortmans PM, Luiten EJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Voogd AC. Detection of local recurrence following breast-conserving treatment in young women with early breast cancer: optimization of long-term follow-up strategies. Breast. 2013;22(3):351–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kontos M, Roy P, Rizos D, Hamed H. An evidence based strategy for follow up after breast conserving treatment for breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104(3):223–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Cooke TG. Locoregional relapse after breast cancer: most relapses occur late and are not clinically detected. Breast J. 2009;15(2):163–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yau TK, Sze H, Soong IS, et al. Surveillance mammography after breast conservation therapy in Hong Kong: effectiveness and feasibility of risk-adapted approach. Breast. 2008;17(2):132–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Jack WJ, et al. Changing pattern of the detection of locoregional relapse in breast cancer: the Edinburgh experience. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(12):1802–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Houssami N, Abraham LA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(8):790–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    US Food and Drug Administration. MQSA national statistics. 2016. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm. Accessed 20 Mar 2016.
  17. 17.
    Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):493–502.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(1):3–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharpe RE Jr, Venkataraman S, Phillips J, et al. Increased cancer detection rate and variations in the recall rate resulting from implementation of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis into a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2016;278(3):698–706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR Consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(1):109–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mitchell AJ, Ferguson DW, Gill J, Paul J, Symonds P. Depression and anxiety in long-term cancer survivors compared with spouses and healthy controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(8):721–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cossetti RJ, Tyldesley SK, Speers CH, Zheng Y, Gelmon KA. Comparison of breast cancer recurrence and outcome patterns between patients treated from 1986 to 1992 and from 2004 to 2008. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):65–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colleoni M, Sun Z, Price KN, et al. Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer during 24 years of follow-up: results from the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials I to V. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(9):927–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liederbach E, Sisco M, Wang C, et al. Wait times for breast surgical operations, 2003–2011: a report from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(3):899–907.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neuman HB, Rathouz PJ, Winslow E, et al. Use of a novel statistical technique to examine the delivery of breast cancer follow-up care by different types of oncology providers. J Eval Clin Pract. doi: 10.1111/jep.12529.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Friese CR, Martinez KA, Abrahamse P, et al. Providers of follow-up care in a population-based sample of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144(1):179–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Runowicz CD, Leach CR, Henry NL, et al. American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology breast cancer survivorship care guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):611–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anderson WF, Katki HA, Rosenberg PS. Incidence of breast cancer in the United States: current and future trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(18):1397–1402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather B. Neuman
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jessica R. Schumacher
    • 1
  • Amanda B. Francescatti
    • 3
  • Taiwo Adesoye
    • 1
  • Stephen B. Edge
    • 4
  • Elizabeth S. Burnside
    • 5
  • David J. Vanness
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Menggang Yu
    • 7
  • Yajuan Si
    • 6
  • Dan McKellar
    • 8
  • David P. Winchester
    • 9
  • Caprice C. Greenberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer CenterUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  3. 3.ACS Clinical Research ProgramAmerican College of SurgeonsChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Roswell Park Cancer InstituteBuffaloUSA
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  6. 6.Population Health ScienceUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  7. 7.Department of Biostatistics and Medical InformaticsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  8. 8.Department of SurgeryWright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  9. 9.American College of Surgeons Cancer ProgramsChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations