Since the 1980s, Rhode Island has achieved one of the highest mammography screening rates in the nation. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of high mammography rates on breast cancer presentation and outcomes.
Methods
Using the Rhode Island Cancer Registry, the incidence of DCIS and invasive cancer, tumor size, stage, rate of BCS and mortality from breast cancer were determined from 1987 to 2001.
Results
Over 80% of Rhode Island women report routine mammography. From 1987 to 2001, there were 1,660 cases of DCIS and 11,301 cases of invasive breast cancer. Although the overall incidence of invasive cancer was stable, the median diameter decreased from 2 cm to 1.5 cm with a significant decrease in the incidence of stage III and IV cancers. There was an increase in BCS for women 50 to 64 years of age with stage I and II disease and for women older than 65 years with stage I disease. Disease-specific mortality decreased by 25%.
Conclusions
High mammography rates in Rhode Island are associated with smaller and earlier-stage breast cancers. This largely accounts for the decreased mortality from breast cancer and the increased rate of BCS.
References
1.
NystromL., RutqvistL.E., WallS.Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet.1993; 341: 973–978.
2.
FrisellJ., LidbrinkE., HellstromL.Followup after 11 years: update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat.1997; 45: 263–270.
3.
RobertsM.M., AlexanderF.E., AndersonT.J.Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet.1990; 335: 241–246.
4.
BjurstamN., BjorneldL., DuffyS.W.The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-490 years at randomization. Cancer.1997; 80: 2091–2099.
5.
AnderssonI., AspegrenK., JanzonL.Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ.1988; 297: 943–948.
6.
ShapiroS.Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr.1997; 22: 27–30.
7.
MillerA.B., BainesC.J., ToT.Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ.1992; 147: 1459–1476.
8.
MillerA.B., BainesC.J., ToT.Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ.1992; 147: 1477–1488.
9.
NystromL., AnderssonI., BjurstamN.Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet.2002; 359: 909–919.
10.
MillerA.B., ToT., BainesC.J.The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: update on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr.1997; 22: 37–41.
11.
AnderssonI., JanzonL.Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr.1997; 22: 63–67.
12.
TabarL., VitakB., ChenH.H.The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am.2000; 38: 625–651.
13.
AlexanderF.E., AndersonT.J., BrownH.K.14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomized trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet.1999; 353: 1903–1908.
14.
HarrisR.P., HelfandM., WoolfS.H.Current methods of the third US Preventive Services Task Force: a review in the process. Am J Prev Med.2001; 20(suppl 3): 21–35.
15.
BergA.O., AllenJ.D.Screening for Breast Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale.US Preventive Services Task Force, Guidelines from Guide to Clinical Preventative Services. 3rd ed.2000-2003.
16.
SmartC.R., ByrneC., SmithR.A.Twenty-year follow-up of the breast cancers diagnosed during the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. CA Cancer J Clin.1997; 47: 134–149.
17.
SimonM.S., LemanneD., SchwartzA.G.Recent trends in the incidence of in situ and invasive breast cancer in the Detroit metropolitan area (1975-1988). Cancer.1993; 71: 769–774.
18.
ErnstM.F., RoukemaJ.A., CoeberghJ.W.Breast cancers found by screening: earlier detection, lower malignant potential, or both?Br Cancer Res Treat.2002; 76: 19–25.
19.
CadyB., StoneM.D., SchulerJ.G.The new era in breast cancer. invasion, size, and nodal involvement dramatically decreasing as a result of mammographic screening. Arch Surg.1996; 131: 301–308.
20.
TabarL., YenM.F., VitakB.Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet.2003; 361: 1405–1410.
21.
ChungM.A., FultonJ., CadyB.Trends in breast cancer incidence and presentation in a population screened for breast cancer. Semin Breast Dis.1999; 2: 55–63.
22.
OttoS.J., FracheboudJ., LoomanC.W.Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet.2003; 361: 1411–1417.
23.
PisaniP., FormanD.Declining mortality from breast cancer in Yorkshire, 1983-1998: extent and causes. Br J Cancer.2004; 90: 652–656.
24.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire.Atlanta, Ga: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1990-2002.
25.
GreeneF.L., PageD.L., BalchC.M.AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.6th ed.New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
26.
KleinR.J., SchoenbornC.A.Age adjustment using the 2000 projected US population. Healthy People Statistics Notes, No. 20. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; 2001.
27.
SwanJ., BreenN., CoatesR.J.Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer.2003; 97: 1528–1540.
28.
US Cancer Statistics Working Group.United States Cancer Statistics: 2000 Incidence.Atlanta, Ga: Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2003.
29.
Healthy People 2010. Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health.2nd ed.Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2000.
30.
WellsJ., MarshallP., CrawleyB.Newspaper reporting of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med.2001; 135: 1029–1037.
FletcherS.W., BlackW., HarrisR.Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.1993; 85: 1644–1656.
33.
PerryD.K., MarableS., DarcyD.Breast cancer control report card: Rhode Island, 1999. Med Health R. I.1999; 82: 451–452.
34.
McGinnisL.S., MenckH.R., EyreH.J.National Cancer Data Base survey of breast cancer management for patients from low income zip codes. Cancer.2000; 88: 933–945.
35.
GillK.S., YankaskasB.C.Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice. Cancer.2004; 100: 139–148.
36.
RiesL.A.G., EisnerM.P., KosaryC.L., eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2000.Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute; 2003. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2000, 2003.
37.
CurpenB.N., SicklesE.A., SollittoR.A.The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years of age versus women 50-64 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol.1995; 164: 1099–1103.
38.
ErnsterV.L., BarclayJ.Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr.1997; 22: 151–156.
39.
EvansWP3rd, StarrA.L., BennosE.S.Comparison of the relative incidence of impalpable invasive breast carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ in patients older and younger than 50 years of age. Radiology.1997; 204: 489–491.
40.
CadyB.How to prevent invasive breast cancer: detect and excise duct carcinoma in situ. J Surg Oncol.1998; 69: 60–62.
41.
BursteinH.J., PolyakK., WongJ.S.Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med.2004; 350: 1430–1441.
42.
FisherB., CosantinoJ., RedmondC.Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer. N Engl J Med.1993; 328: 1581–1586.
43.
JulienJ.P., BijkerN., FentimanI.S.Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomized phase III trial 10853. EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. Lancet.2000; 355: 528–533.
44.
SolinL.J., KurtzJ., FourquetA.Fifteen years of breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of ductal carcinoma of the breast. J Clin Oncol.1996; 14: 754–763.
45.
BornsteinB.A., RechtA., ConnollyJ.L.Results of treating ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer.1991; 67: 7–13.
46.
KotwallC., BrinkerC., CovingtonD.Local and national trends over a decade in the surgical treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg.2003; 186: 723–728.
47.
WinchesterD.J., MenckH.R., WinchesterD.P.National treatment trends for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Surg.1997; 132: 660–665.
48.
ErnsterV.L., BarclayJ., KerlikowskeK.Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA.1996; 275: 913–918.
49.
LoveR.R., DucN.B., DinhN.V.Young age as an adverse prognostic factor in premenopausal women with operable breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer.2002; 2: 294–298.
50.
MaggardM.A., O'ConnellJ.B., LaneK.E.Do young breast cancer patients have worse outcomes?J Surg Res.2003; 113: 109–113.
51.
LiC.I., MaloneK.E., DalingJ.R.Differences in breast cancer stage, treatment, and survival by race and ethnicity. Arch Intern Med.2003; 163: 49–56.
52.
FisherB., AndersonS., RedmondC.K.Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med.1995; 333: 1456–1461.
53.
VeronesiU., LuiniA., VecchioM.Radiotherapy after breast-preserving surgery in women with localized cancer of the breast. N Engl J Med.1993; 328: 1587–1591.
54.
JacobsonJ.A., DanforthD.N., CowanK.H.Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med.1995; 332: 907–911.
55.
van DongenJ.A., BartelinkH., FentimanI.S.Randomized clinical trial to assess the value of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast cancer. EORTC 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr.1992; 11: 15–18.
56.
GiulianoA.E.Sentinel lymphadenectomy in primary breast carcinoma: an alternative to routine axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol.1996; 62: 75–77.
57.
VeronesiU., PaganelliG., GalimbertiV.Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet.1997; 349: 1864–1867.
58.
TabarL., DuffyS.W., VitakB.The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening?Cancer.1999; 86: 449–462.
59.
SpencerD.B., PotterJ.E., ChungM.A.Mammographic screening and disease presentation of breast cancer: patients who die of disease. Breast.2004 (in press).
