Measures of Benefit for Breast Screening from the Pathology Database for Scotland, 1991-2001

Overview

Journal J Clin Pathol

Specialty Pathology

Date 2003 Aug 29

PMID 12944547

Citations 2

Authors

T J Anderson

C Davis

F E Alexander

H M Dobson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: To examine pathology characteristics of breast cancers detected by mammography screening over 10 years in Scotland, and compare the nature of cancer yields after different levels of very small invasive cancer at prevalence detection.

Methods: A pathology database of cancers from mammography screening of women aged 50-64 years invited every three years was used to assess the variation over time in annual yield of different invasive cancer sizes. Screening centres were compared for incidence screen yields, according to sizes, histological type, grade, and node status.

Results: There was a significant trend over time for increased detection of < 15 mm cancers among 2353 prevalence cancers, and a significant trend for increase in all size groups, < 10, 10-14, < 15, and >or= 15 mm, among 2245 incidence cancers. Based on individual screening centres, there was a significant negative relation between proportions of very small (< 10 mm) cancers at prevalence screens and of large (>or= 15 mm) cancers at incidence screens of the same "cohort" three years later. There was no significant relation on the same centre basis for worse pathology characteristics (histological no special type, high grade, and positive node status) in cancers detected in the same "cohort" three years later.

Conclusions: Sensitive mammography screening has a significant effect on the nature of yields at subsequent screens. Length of screening interval and consistency in pathologist opinions are factors that account for lack of effect on incidence cancer qualitative pathology characteristics. These issues are relevant to the use of such characteristics as surrogate measures of service screening performance.

Citing Articles

Rare Breast Malignancy Subtypes: A Cytological, Histological, and Immunohistochemical Correlation.

Kaur M, Tiwana K, Singla N Niger J Surg. 2019; 25(1):70-75.

PMID: 31007516 PMC: 6452754. DOI: 10.4103/njs.NJS_27_18.

Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study.

Duffy S, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D, Offman J, Parmar D, Jenkins J Lancet Oncol. 2015; 17(1):109-14.

PMID: 26655422 PMC: 4691349. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00446-5.

References

Roylance R, Gorman P, Hanby A, Tomlinson I . Allelic imbalance analysis of chromosome 16q shows that grade I and grade III invasive ductal breast cancers follow different genetic pathways. J Pathol. 2001; 196(1):32-6. DOI: 10.1002/path.1006. View

Tabar L, Duffy S, Vitak B, Chen H, Prevost T . The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening?. Cancer. 1999; 86(3):449-62. View

Sloane J, Ellman R, Anderson T, Brown C, Coyne J, Dallimore N . Consistency of histopathological reporting of breast lesions detected by screening: findings of the U.K. National External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme. U. K. National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology. Eur J Cancer. 1994; 30A(10):1414-9. DOI: 10.1016/0959-8049(94)00261-3. View

Cserni G . Tumour histological grade may progress between primary and recurrent invasive mammary carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 2002; 55(4):293-7. PMC: 1769625. DOI: 10.1136/jcp.55.4.293. View

Day N, Williams D, Khaw K . Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer. 1989; 59(6):954-8. PMC: 2246734. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1989.203. View

Walter S, Day N . Estimation of the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data. Am J Epidemiol. 1983; 118(6):865-86. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113705. View

Anderson T, Alexander F, Forrest P . The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening?. Cancer. 2000; 88(7):1758-9. View

Johnson A, Shekhdar J . Does breast cancer grade worsen with time? Evidence from breast screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001; 68(3):261-71. DOI: 10.1023/a:1012273922325. View

Blanks R, Day N, Moss S . Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: use of indirect standardisation in evaluating the invasive cancer detection rate. J Med Screen. 1996; 3(2):79-81. DOI: 10.1177/096914139600300206. View

10.

Blanks R, Moss S . Breast cancer screening sensitivity in the NHSBSP: recent results and implications. Breast. 2004; 8(6):301-2. DOI: 10.1054/brst.1999.0091. View

11.

Anderson T, Sufi F, Ellis I, Sloane J, Moss S . Implications of pathologist concordance for breast cancer assessments in mammography screening from age 40 years. Hum Pathol. 2002; 33(3):365-71. DOI: 10.1053/hupa.2002.32222. View

12.

Cowan W, Angus B, Gray J, Lunt L . A study of interval breast cancer within the NHS breast screening programme. J Clin Pathol. 2000; 53(2):140-6. PMC: 1763287. DOI: 10.1136/jcp.53.2.140. View

13.

Evans A, Pinder S, Burrell H, Ellis I, Wilson A . Detecting which invasive cancers at mammographic screening saves lives?. J Med Screen. 2001; 8(2):86-90. DOI: 10.1136/jms.8.2.86. View

14.

Cole P, MORRISON A . Basic issues in population screening for cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1980; 64(5):1263-72. View

15.

Everington D, Gilbert F, Tyack C, Warner J . The Scottish breast screening programme's experience of monitoring interval cancers. J Med Screen. 1999; 6(1):21-7. DOI: 10.1136/jms.6.1.21. View

16.

Alexander F, Anderson T, Hubbard A . Screening status in relation to biological and chronological characteristics of breast cancers: a cross sectional survey. J Med Screen. 1997; 4(3):152-7. DOI: 10.1177/096914139700400308. View

17.

Roylance R, Gorman P, Harris W, Liebmann R, Barnes D, Hanby A . Comparative genomic hybridization of breast tumors stratified by histological grade reveals new insights into the biological progression of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1999; 59(7):1433-6. View

18.

Shapiro S, Coleman E, Broeders M, Codd M, de Koning H, Fracheboud J . Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol. 1998; 27(5):735-42. DOI: 10.1093/ije/27.5.735. View

19.

Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H, Duffy S, Gad A . Tumour development, histology and grade of breast cancers: prognosis and progression. Int J Cancer. 1996; 66(4):413-9. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960516)66:4<413::AID-IJC1>3.0.CO;2-Z. View

20.

Hakama M, Holli K, Isola J, Kallioniemi O, Karkkainen A, Visakorpi T . Aggressiveness of screen-detected breast cancers. Lancet. 1995; 345(8944):221-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90223-6. View