» Articles » PMID: 32664200

Precision Science on Incidence and Progression of Early-Detected Small Breast Invasive Cancers by Mammographic Features

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Oncology
Date 2020 Jul 16
PMID 32664200
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The aim was to evaluate how the inter-screening interval affected the performance of screening by mammographic appearances. This was a Swedish retrospective screening cohort study with information on screening history and mammography features in two periods (1977-1985 and 1996-2010). The pre-clinical incidence and the mean sojourn time (MST) for small breast cancer allowing for sensitivity by mammographic appearances were estimated. The percentage of interval cancer against background incidence (I/E ratio) was used to assess the performance of mammography screening by different inter-screening intervals. The sensitivity-adjusted MSTs (in years) were heterogeneous with mammographic features, being longer for powdery and crushed stone-like calcifications (4.26, (95% CI, 3.50-5.26)) and stellate masses (3.76, (95% CI, 3.15-4.53)) but shorter for circular masses (2.65, (95% CI, 2.06-3.55)) in 1996-2010. The similar trends, albeit longer MSTs, were also noted in 1977-1985. The I/E ratios for the stellate type were 23% and 32% for biennial and triennial screening, respectively. The corresponding figures were 32% and 43% for the circular type and 21% and 29% for powdery and crushed stone-like calcifications, respectively. Mammography-featured progressions of small invasive breast cancer provides a new insight into personalized quality assurance, surveillance, treatment and therapy of early-detected breast cancer.

Citing Articles

Mammographic features and risk of breast cancer death among women with invasive screen-detected cancer in BreastScreen Norway 1996-2020.

Moshina N, Backmann H, Skaane P, Hofvind S Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(5):3364-3374.

PMID: 37935848 PMC: 11126444. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10369-w.

References
1.
Fanizzi A, Basile T, Losurdo L, Bellotti R, Bottigli U, Dentamaro R . A machine learning approach on multiscale texture analysis for breast microcalcification diagnosis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2020; 21(Suppl 2):91. PMC: 7069158. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-020-3358-4. View

2.
Leach M, Boggis C, Dixon A, Easton D, Eeles R, Evans D . 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. 2005; 365(9473):1769-78. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1. View

3.
Obenauer S, Hermann K, Grabbe E . Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15(5):1027-36. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2593-9. View

4.
Hsu C, Yen M, Auvinen A, Chiu Y, Chen H . Bayesian negative-binomial-family-based multistate Markov model for the evaluation of periodic population-based cancer screening considering incomplete information and measurement errors. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018; 27(8):2519-2539. DOI: 10.1177/0962280216682284. View

5.
Wu W, Tabar L, Tot T, Fann C, Yen A, Chen S . Imaging Biomarkers as Predictors for Breast Cancer Death. J Oncol. 2019; 2019:2087983. PMC: 6481030. DOI: 10.1155/2019/2087983. View