Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment Intensity Differences After Early-Stage Breast Cancer (ESBC) Diagnosis Depending on Participation in a Screening Program

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

While population mammographic screening identifies early-stage breast cancers (ESBCs; ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] and invasive disease stages 1–3A), commentaries suggest that harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment may outweigh the benefits. Apparent benefits to patients with screen-detected cancers may be due to selection bias from exclusion of interval cancers (ICs). Treatment intensity is rarely discussed, with an assumption that all ESBCs are treated similarly. We hypothesized that women diagnosed while in a screening program would receive less-intense treatment than those never or not recently screened (NRS).

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of all women aged 50–69 years managed for ESBC (invasive or DCIS) during the period 2007–2013 within a single service, comparing treatment according to screening status. Data on demographics, detection, pathology, and treatment were derived from hospital, cancer registry, and screening service records.

Results

Overall, 622 patients were active screeners (AS) at diagnosis (569 screen-detected and 53 ICs) and 169 patients were NRS. AS cancers were smaller (17 mm vs. 26 mm, p < 0.0001), less likely to involve nodes (26% vs. 48%, p < 0.0001), and lower grade. For invasive cancer, NRS patients were more likely to be recommended for mastectomies [35% vs. 16%; risk ratio(RR) 2.2, p < 0.0001], axillary dissection (43% vs. 19%; RR 2.3, p < 0.0001), adjuvant chemotherapy (65% vs. 37%; RR 1.7, p < 0.0001), and postmastectomy radiotherapy (58% vs. 39%; RR 1.5, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Participants in population screening diagnosed with ESBC receive substantially less-intense treatment than non-participants. Differences persist when potential overdiagnosis is taken into account; these differences should be factored into debates around mammographic screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA. 1971;215(11):1777–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tabar L, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1(8433):829–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1):CD001877.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Weedon-Fekjaer H, Romundstad PR, Vatten LJ. Modern mammography screening and breast cancer mortality: population study. BMJ. 2014;348:g3701.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Marmot M, et al. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening replies to Michael Baum. BMJ. 2013;346:f873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marmot MG. Sorting through the arguments on breast screening. JAMA. 2013;309(24):2553–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Berry DA, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998–2005.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Puliti D, et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012; 19 Suppl 1:42–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Biller-Andorno N, Juni P. Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss Medical Board. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(21):1965–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2587.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Elmore JG, Harris RP. The harms and benefits of modern screening mammography. BMJ. 2014;348:g3824.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2012–2013. Cancer series no. 95. Cat. no. CAN 93. 2015: Canberra, ACT.

  14. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2010-2011. Cancer series no. 77. Cat. no. CAN 74. 2013: Canberra, ACT.

  15. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2009-2010. Cancer series no. 72. Cat. no. CAN 68. 2012: Canberra, ACT.

  16. Barth RJ Jr, et al. Detection of breast cancer on screening mammography allows patients to be treated with less-toxic therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(1):324–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Spillane AJ, et al. Screen-detected breast cancer compared to symptomatic presentation: an analysis of surgical treatment and end-points of effective mammographic screening. ANZ J Surg. 2001;71(7):398–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ernst MF, et al. The introduction of mammographical screening has had little effect on the trend in breast-conserving surgery: a population-based study in Southeast Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37(18):2435–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Coldman AJ, Phillips N, Speers C. A retrospective study of the effect of participation in screening mammography on the use of chemotherapy and breast conserving surgery. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(10):2185–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Malmgren JA, et al. Impact of mammography detection on the course of breast cancer in women aged 40–49 years. Radiology. 2012;262(3):79–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Meshkat B, et al. A comparison of clinical-pathological characteristics between symptomatic and interval breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24(3):278–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pattanasri M, et al. Uptake of adjuvant breast cancer treatments recommended by multi-disciplinary meetings. ANZ J Surg. Epub 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Australian Federal Department of Health and Ageing, Screening Monograph No.11/2009. BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Mammography Analysis Project. 2009.

  24. Arndt V, et al. Quality of life over 5 years in women with breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy: a population-based study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134(12):1311–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sagen A, et al. Upper limb physical function and adverse effects after breast cancer surgery: a prospective 2.5-year follow-up study and preoperative measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(5):875–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Crane-Okada R, et al. Long-term morbidity of sentinel node biopsy versus complete axillary dissection for unilateral breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(7):1996–2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Park SB, et al. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: a critical analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(6):419–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Clark MM, et al. Physical activity in patients with advanced-stage cancer actively receiving chemotherapy. J Support Oncol. 2007;5(10):487–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor C, et al. Estimating the Risks of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: Evidence From Modern Radiation Doses to the Lungs and Heart and From Previous Randomized Trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1641–1649.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Walsh SM, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: indications and implications. Surgeon. 2014;12(6):310–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Tian Y, et al. Profile and predictors of long-term morbidity in breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3453–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Giuliano AE, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252(3):426–32; discussion 432–3.

  33. Gatzemeier W, Mann GB. Which sentinel lymph-node (SLN) positive breast cancer patient needs an axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND): ACOSOG Z0011 results and beyond. Breast. 2013;22(3):211–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

None.

Author Contributions

KE: Literature search, study design, management, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing, manuscript preparation and review, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. CN: Study design, management, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing, manuscript preparation and review, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. MP: Data collection and analysis, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. SC: Literature search, study design and data collection, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. DM: Data management, review of manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. AR: Data analysis and interpretation of analysis, review of manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. AM: Data analysis and interpretation of analysis, review of the manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. JPC: Retrospective MDM recommendations, data analysis, review of the manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. AP: Data collection, and approval of final version of the manuscript. RB: Retrospective MDM recommendations, data analysis, review of manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. CP: Retrospective MDM recommendations, data analysis, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. VP: Data collection and review of the manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. HF: Data collection and interpretation of analysis, review of the manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. GBM: Concept development, study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, retrospective MDM recommendations, manuscript preparation and review, writing, and approval of the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project is partly funded through the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme (Nickson C, Canfell K, Barandregt J, Petrie D, Mann B, Brennan P. Maximising benefits and minimising harms in the BreastScreen program: a population health economics modelling approach. 2014–2016) and by research funds of the Royal Melbourne Hospital/Royal Women’s Hospital Breast Service.

Disclosure

No conflict of interests declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Breast Service, Royal Melbourne and Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Kenneth Elder BEng, MSc, MPhil, BMBS, MRCS, Melinda Pattanasri MBBS, Samuel Cooke MD, BSc, Allison Rose MBBS, FRANZCR, Arlene Mou MBBS, FRANZCR, John Paxton Collins MBBS, FRACS, FACS, Allan Park MN, Richard De Boer MBBS, FRACP, Claire Phillips MBBS, FRANZCR & G. Bruce Mann MBBS, PhD, FRACS

  2. Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Carolyn Nickson BA, Grad Dip, PhD & Dorothy Machalek BSc, MPH, PhD

  3. Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    John Paxton Collins MBBS, FRACS, FACS & G. Bruce Mann MBBS, PhD, FRACS

  4. BreastScreen Victoria, Carlton, VIC, Australia

    Vicki Pridmore BA

  5. Victorian Cancer Registry, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Helen Farrugia BAppSci HIM

  6. Cancer Council New South Wales, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia

    Carolyn Nickson BA, Grad Dip, PhD

Authors
  1. Kenneth Elder BEng, MSc, MPhil, BMBS, MRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carolyn Nickson BA, Grad Dip, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melinda Pattanasri MBBS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samuel Cooke MD, BSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dorothy Machalek BSc, MPH, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Allison Rose MBBS, FRANZCR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arlene Mou MBBS, FRANZCR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John Paxton Collins MBBS, FRACS, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Allan Park MN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Richard De Boer MBBS, FRACP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Claire Phillips MBBS, FRANZCR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Vicki Pridmore BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Helen Farrugia BAppSci HIM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. G. Bruce Mann MBBS, PhD, FRACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Bruce Mann MBBS, PhD, FRACS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elder, K., Nickson, C., Pattanasri, M. et al. Treatment Intensity Differences After Early-Stage Breast Cancer (ESBC) Diagnosis Depending on Participation in a Screening Program. Ann Surg Oncol 25, 2563–2572 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6469-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6469-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation