Impact of Mammography Screening Interval on Breast Cancer Diagnosis by Menopausal Status and BMI

被引:18
作者
Dittus, Kim [1 ]
Geller, Berta [2 ]
Weaver, Donald L. [3 ]
Kerlikowske, Karla [4 ,5 ]
Zhu, Weiwei [6 ]
Hubbard, Rebecca [6 ,7 ]
Braithwaite, Dejana [4 ,5 ]
O'Meara, Ellen S. [6 ]
Miglioretti, Diana L. [6 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Dept Hematol Oncol, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[2] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Family Med & Radiol Dept, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[3] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Dept Pathol, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[6] Grp Hlth Cooperat Puget Sound, Grp Hlth Res Inst, Seattle, WA USA
[7] Univ Washington, Dept Biostat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[8] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Med, Dept Publ Hlth Sci, Div Biostat, Davis, CA 95616 USA
关键词
mammography; BMI; menopausal status; CARCINOMA IN-SITU; BODY-MASS INDEX; NUTRITION-EXAMINATION-SURVEY; NATIONAL-HEALTH; OBESITY; RISK; WOMEN; RECURRENCE; EXPRESSION; WEIGHT;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-013-2507-0
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Controversy remains regarding the frequency of screening mammography. Women with different risks for developing breast cancer because of body mass index (BMI) may benefit from tailored recommendations. To determine the impact of mammography screening interval for women who are normal weight (BMI < 25), overweight (BMI 25-29.9), or obese (BMI a parts per thousand yen 30), stratified by menopausal status. Two cohorts selected from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Patient and mammography data were linked to pathology databases and tumor registries. The cohort included 4,432 women aged 40-74 with breast cancer; the false-positive analysis included a cohort of 553,343 women aged 40-74 without breast cancer. Stage, tumor size and lymph node status by BMI and screening interval (biennial vs. annual). Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy by BMI and screening interval. Analyses were stratified by menopausal status. Premenopausal obese women undergoing biennial screening had a non-significantly increased odds of a tumor size > 20 mm relative to annual screeners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.997 to 4.30). Across all BMI categories from normal to obese, postmenopausal women with breast cancer did not present with higher stage, larger tumor size or node positive tumors if they received biennial rather than annual screening. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendations were more common among annually screened women. The only negative outcome identified for biennial vs. annual screening was a larger tumor size (> 20 mm) among obese premenopausal women. Since annual mammography does not improve stage at diagnosis compared to biennial screening and false-positive recall/biopsy rates are higher with annual screening, women and their primary care providers should weigh the harms and benefits when deciding on annual versus biennial screening.
引用
收藏
页码:1454 / 1462
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The Addition of Automated Breast Ultrasound to Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening Decreases Stage at Diagnosis
    Grady, Ian
    Chanisheva, Nailya
    Vasquez, Tony
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2017, 24 (12) : 1570 - 1574
  • [22] Obesity and menopausal status impact the features and molecular phenotype of invasive lobular breast cancer
    Rothschild, Harriet T.
    Abel, Mary Kathryn
    Patterson, Anne
    Goodman, Kent
    Shui, Amy
    van Baelen, Karen
    Desmedt, Christine
    Benz, Christopher
    Mukhtar, Rita A.
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2022, 191 (02) : 451 - 458
  • [23] Impact of artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening with mammography
    Lan-Anh Dang
    Emmanuel Chazard
    Edouard Poncelet
    Teodora Serb
    Aniela Rusu
    Xavier Pauwels
    Clémence Parsy
    Thibault Poclet
    Hugo Cauliez
    Constance Engelaere
    Guillaume Ramette
    Charlotte Brienne
    Sofiane Dujardin
    Nicolas Laurent
    Breast Cancer, 2022, 29 : 967 - 977
  • [24] Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations: Is Mammography the Only Answer?
    Kearney, Anne J.
    Murray, Michael
    JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & WOMENS HEALTH, 2009, 54 (05) : 393 - 400
  • [25] Impact of artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening with mammography
    Lan-Anh Dang
    Chazard, Emmanuel
    Poncelet, Edouard
    Serb, Teodora
    Rusu, Aniela
    Pauwels, Xavier
    Parsy, Clemence
    Poclet, Thibault
    Cauliez, Hugo
    Engelaere, Constance
    Ramette, Guillaume
    Brienne, Charlotte
    Dujardin, Sofiane
    Laurent, Nicolas
    BREAST CANCER, 2022, 29 (06) : 967 - 977
  • [26] Breast cancer subtype and screening sensitivity in the Quebec Mammography Screening Program
    Perron, Linda
    Chang, Sue-Ling
    Daigle, Jean-Marc
    Vandal, Nathalie
    Theberge, Isabelle
    Diorio, Caroline
    Lemieux, Julie
    Pelletier, Eric
    Brisson, Jacques
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2019, 26 (03) : 154 - 161
  • [27] Breast cancer diagnosis with ultrasound and mammography external to a screening scheme
    Grunert, J. -H.
    Hille, H.
    GEBURTSHILFE UND FRAUENHEILKUNDE, 2006, 66 (07) : 670 - 673
  • [28] The current status of positron emission mammography in breast cancer diagnosis
    Kalles, Vasileios
    Zografos, George C.
    Provatopoulou, Xeni
    Koulocheri, Dimitra
    Gounaris, Antonia
    BREAST CANCER, 2013, 20 (02) : 123 - 130
  • [29] Impact of socioeconomic status on stage at diagnosis of breast cancer
    Berger, F.
    Doussau, A.
    Gautier, C.
    Gros, F.
    Asselain, B.
    Reyal, F.
    REVUE D EPIDEMIOLOGIE ET DE SANTE PUBLIQUE, 2012, 60 (01): : 19 - 29
  • [30] Relative Timing of Mammography and MRI for Breast Cancer Screening: Impact on Performance Evaluation
    Lee, Janie M.
    Ichikawa, Laura E.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Lee, Christoph I.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Onega, Tracy
    Wernli, Karen J.
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Stout, Natasha K.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2024, 21 (11) : 1722 - 1732