Higher Detection Rates of Biologically Aggressive Breast Cancers in Mammography Screening than in the Biennial Interval

Abstract

Purpose Assessment of age group-dependent detection rates of invasive breast cancers among participants in mammography screening including the interval, classified into immunohistochemical subtypes indicating the intrinsic tumor aggressiveness.

Materials und Methods The target population comprises women aged 50 – 69 years. All invasive breast cancers diagnosed in one screening (sc) unit during the implementation phase 1/2006 – 12/2010 or identified by the cancer registry during the biennial interval (iv) were categorized based on hormonal-receptor status (HR) and Her2-expression (Her2) into the following subtypes: a) HR+ Her2-, b) HR+ Her2 +, c) HR– Her2 + or d) HR– Her2– (triple-negative); Her2 + and triple-negative types were defined as aggressive. The calculated detection rates (DR, ‰) were based on 53 375 sc-examinations and for the interval on 52 887 sc-negative examinations.

Results The DRs of all subtypes were higher in screening versus the interval: (a) 4.95 ‰ (n = 264) vs. 1.00 ‰ (n = 53); b) 0.92 ‰ (n = 49) vs. 0.25 ‰ (n = 13); c) 0.36 ‰ (n = 19) vs. 0.06 ‰ (n = 3); d) 0.39 ‰ (n = 21) vs. 0.19 ‰ (n = 10). 77.4 ‰ (89/115) of all aggressive breast cancers including the following 2-year interval were diagnosed by screening. The sum of the DR of aggressive cancers was 1.67 ‰ in screening and 0.49 ‰ in the interval; the corresponding DRs for women aged 60 – 69 years [sc: 2.24 ‰ (51/22 814), iv: 0.58 ‰ (13/22 536)] were higher than among women aged 50 – 59 years [sc: 1.24 ‰ (38/30 561), iv: 0.43 ‰ (13/30 351)].

Conclusion Screening has the potential for earlier diagnosis of aggressive tumor types as its detection rate is about three-fold higher compared to the interval. Within the target group, participants aged 60 – 69 years are at risk based on absolute numbers. They show a nearly two-fold higher detection rate of Her2-positive or triple-negative tumors compared to the age group 50 – 59 years.

Key Points 

• Her2-positive and triple-negative detection rates are higher in screening than in the interval.

• 77 % of aggressive subtypes are diagnosed by screening, 23 % during the 2-year interval.

• The detection rate is highest among women aged 60 – 69 years in screening.

Citation Format

• Prange A, Bokhof B, Polzer P et al. Higher Detection Rates of Biologically Aggressive Breast Cancers in Mammography Screening than in the Biennial Interval. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2019; 191: 130 – 136

Key words

breast cancer - mammography screening - interval breast cancer - tumor subtypes - cancer characteristics

• References

• 1 Holm J, Humphreys K, Li J. et al. Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 1030-1037
• 2 Falck AK, Röme A, Fernö M. et al. St Gallen molecular subtypes in screening-detected and symptomatic breast cancer in a prospective cohort with long-term follow-up. Br J Surg 2016; 103: 513-523
• 3 Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD. et al. Panel members. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1319-1329
• 4 Conference, S.G.I.B.C., Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer., in St. Gallen international consensus session on the optimal primary treatment of breast cancer 2017 at the 15th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017. Vienna, Austria: 2017
• 5 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnose, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Version 4.0, 2017 AWMF Registernummer: 032–045OL, http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/mammakarzinom/
• 6 Heidinger O, Batzler WU, Krieg V. et al. The incidence of interval cancers in the German mammography screening programme—results from the population-based cancer registry in North Rhine–Westphalia. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2012; 109: 781-787 . doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0781
• 7 Perry NM, Broeders M, de Wolf C. et al. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. 4th. ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006
• 8 Anlage 9.2 BMV-Ä/EKV Bundesmantelvertrag Anlage 9.2, Versorgung im Rahmen des Programmes zur Früherkennung von Brustkrebs durch Mammografie-Screening. 2014 www.kbv.de/html/bundesmantelvertag.php
• 9 Weigel S, Batzler WU, Decker T. et al. First epidemiological analysis of breast cancer incidence and tumor characteristics after implementation of population-based digital mammography screening. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2009; 181: 1144-1150
• 10 Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidrich J. et al. Reduction of Advanced Breast Cancer Stages at Subsequent Participation in Mammography Screening. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 33-37
• 11 Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. Union for International Cancer Control. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 8th. edition. John Wiley & Sons; 2017
• 12 Eroles P, Bosch A, Pérez-Fidalgo JA. et al. Molecular biology in breast cancer: intrinsic subtypes and signaling pathways. Cancer Treat Rev 2012; 38: 698-707
• 13 Cancer in Germany 2011/2012. 10th. edition. Berlin: Robert Koch Institute (ed.) and the Association of Population-based Cancer Registries in Germany (ed.); 2015
• 14 Plevritis SK, Munoz D, Kurian AW. et al. Association of Screening and Treatment With Breast Cancer Mortality by Molecular Subtype in US Women, 2000–2012. JAMA 2018; 319: 154-164 . doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19130