The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Surgical Margin Status in Breast Cancer Patients Recalled at Biennial Screening Mammography: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the association between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical margin involvement, as well as to determine the factors associated with positive resection margins in screen-detected breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: Breast cancer patients eligible for BCS and diagnosed after biennial screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands (2008-2017) were retrospectively included. Missing values were imputed and multivariable regression analyses were performed to analyze whether preoperative MRI was related to margin involvement after BCS, as well as to examine what factors were associated with positive resection margins, defined as more than focally (>4 mm) involved. RESULTS: Overall, 2483 patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled, of whom 123 (5.0%) had more than focally involved resection margins. In multivariable regression analyses, preoperative MRI was associated with a reduced risk of positive resection margins after BCS (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.96). Lobular histology (adjusted OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.68-4.87), large tumor size (per millimeter increase, adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), high (>75%) mammographic density (adjusted OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.07-12.12), and the presence of microcalcifications (adjusted OR 4.45, 95% CI 2.69-7.37) and architectural distortions (adjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.01-3.40) were independently associated with positive resection margins after BCS. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI was associated with lower risk of positive resection margins in patients with invasive breast cancer eligible for BCS using multivariable analysis. Furthermore, specific mammographic characteristics and tumor characteristics were independently associated with positive resection margins after BCS.

Trends in frequency and outcome of high-risk breast lesions at core needle biopsy in women recalled at biennial screening mammography, a multiinstitutional study.

Between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, we studied the incidence, management and outcome of high-risk breast lesions in a consecutive series of 376,519 screens of women who received biennial screening mammography. During the 6-year period covered by the study, the proportion of women who underwent core needle biopsy (CNB) after recall remained fairly stable, ranging from 39.2% to 48.1% (mean: 44.2%, 5,212/11,783), whereas the proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB (i.e., flat epithelial atypia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ and papillary lesions) gradually increased from 3.2% (25/775) in 2011 to 9.5% (86/901) in 2016 (p < 0.001). The mean proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB that were subsequently treated with diagnostic surgical excision was 51.4% (169/329) and varied between 41.0% and 64.3% through the years, but the excision rate for high-risk lesions per 1,000 screens and per 100 recalls increased from 0.25 (2011) to 0.70 (2016; p < 0.001) and from 0.81 (2011) to 2.50 (2016; p < 0.001), respectively. The proportion of all diagnostic surgical excisions showing in situ or invasive breast cancer was 29.0% (49/169) and varied from 22.2% (8/36) in 2014 to 38.5% (5/13) in 2011. In conclusion, the proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB tripled in a 6-year period, with a concomitant increased excision rate for these lesions. As the proportion of surgical excisions showing in situ or invasive breast cancer did not increase, a rising number of screened women underwent invasive surgical excision with benign outcome.

Interval breast cancer characteristics before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.

BACKGROUND: To determine the proportion of "true" interval cancers and tumor characteristics of interval breast cancers prior to, during and after the transition from screen-film mammography screening (SFM) to full-field digital mammography screening (FFDM). METHODS: We included all women with interval cancers detected between January 2006 and January 2014. Breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports of all women recalled at screening mammography and of all women with interval breast cancers were collected. Two experienced screening radiologists reviewed the diagnostic mammograms, on which the interval cancers were diagnosed, as well as the prior screening mammograms and determined whether or not the interval cancer had been missed on the most recent screening mammogram. If not missed, the cancer was considered an occult ("true") interval cancer. RESULTS: A total of 442 interval cancers had been diagnosed, of which 144 at SFM with a prior SFM (SFM-SFM), 159 at FFDM with a prior SFM (FFDM-SFM) and 139 at FFDM with a prior FFDM (FFDM-FFDM). The transition from SFM to FFDM screening resulted in the diagnosis of more occult ("true") interval cancers at FFDM-SFM than at SFM-SFM (65.4% (104/159) versus 49.3% (71/144), P < 0.01), but this increase was no longer statistically significant in women who had been screened digitally for the second time (57.6% (80/139) at FFDM-FFDM versus 49.3% (71/144) at SFM-SFM). Tumor characteristics were comparable for the three interval cancer cohorts, except of a lower porportion (75.7 and 78.0% versus 67.2% af FFDM-FFDM, P < 0.05) of invasive ductal cancers at FFDM with prior FFDM. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in the proportion of occult interval cancers is observed during the transition from SFM to FFDM screening mammography. However, this increase seems temporary and is no longer detectable after the second round of digital screening. Tumor characteristics and type of surgery are comparable for interval cancers detected prior to, during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM screening mammography, except of a lower proportion of invasive ductal cancers after the transition.

Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: In most breast screening programmes screen-film mammography (SFM) has been replaced by full-field digital mammography (FFDM). We compared interval cancer characteristics at SFM and FFDM screening mammography. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included all 297 screen-detected and 104 interval cancers in 60,770 SFM examinations and 427 screen-detected and 124 interval cancers in 63,182 FFDM examinations, in women screened in the period 2008-2010. Breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all cancers were collected. Two radiologists reviewed prior and diagnostic mammograms of all interval cancers. They determined breast density, described mammographic abnormalities and classified interval cancers as missed, showing a minimal sign abnormality or true negative. RESULTS: The referral rate and cancer detection at SFM were 1.5% and 4.9‰ respectively, compared to 3.0% (p<0.001) and 6.6‰ (p<0.001) at FFDM. Screening sensitivity was 74.1% at SFM (297/401, 95% confidence interval (CI)=69.8-78.4%) and 77.5% at FFDM (427/551, 95% CI=74.0-81.0%). Significantly more interval cancers were true negative at prior FFDM than at prior SFM screening mammography (65.3% (81/124) versus 47.1% (49/104), p=0.02). For interval cancers following SFM or FFDM screening mammography, no significant differences were observed in breast density or mammographic abnormalities at the prior screen, tumour size, lymph node status, receptor status, Nottingham tumour grade or surgical treatment (mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy). CONCLUSION: FFDM resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate, but sensitivity was similar for SFM and FFDM. Interval cancers are more likely to be true negative at prior FFDM than at prior SFM screening mammography, whereas their tumour characteristics and type of surgical treatment are comparable.

Detection of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in the Netherlands: a population-based study.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography and to assess the sensitivity of screening in the detection of bilateral breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All women gave written informed consent, and the requirement to obtain review board approval was waived. The authors included all 302,196 screening mammograms obtained in 80,466 women aged 50-75 years in a southern breast screening region of the Netherlands between May 1998 and July 2008. During 2-year follow-up, the authors collected clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results, and breast surgery reports from all patients with screening-detected and interval cancers. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening and clinical mammograms of all bilateral screening-detected and interval cancers for mammographic abnormalities. The radiologists were initially blinded to each other's referral opinion, and discrepant assessments were followed by consensus reading. RESULTS: Of all women with screening-detected cancer (n = 1555) or interval cancer (n = 585), 52 (2.4%) had bilateral breast cancer. The sensitivity of screening mammography in the detection of bilateral breast cancer was 19% (10 of 52 women; 95% confidence interval: 8.5%, 29.9%). At blinded review, 18 of the 53 tumors not detected at screening (34%) were considered to be missed, 11 (21%) showed nonspecific minimal signs, and 24 (45%) had been mammographically occult at screening. Five women referred for further analysis experienced a 6-17-month delay in the diagnosis of the second breast cancer; in four of those women, the delay resulted from an incorrect Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification at clinical mammography. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of screening mammography in the detection of bilateral breast cancer is disappointingly low. Both screening radiologists and clinical radiologists should pay vigorous attention to the contralateral breast to detect bilateral malignancies without diagnostic delay.

Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency, pathology and causes of a delay in cancer diagnosis in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography. METHODS: We included all 290,943 screening mammograms of women aged 50-75 years, who underwent biennial screening mammography between 1st January 1995 and 1st January 2006. During a follow-up period of at least 2 years, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all 3513 women with a positive screening result. Tumour stages of breast cancers with a diagnostic delay (defined as breast cancer confirmation more than 3 months following a positive mammography screen) were compared with those of cancers diagnosed within 3 months following referral and with interval cancers. RESULTS: A diagnostic delay occurred in 97 (6.5%) of 1503 screen-detected cancers. These 97 false-negative assessments comprised significantly more ductal cancers in situ (26.8%) than did cancers with an adequate assessment after recall (15.5%, p=0.004) or interval cancers (3.7%, p<0.001). Compared with interval cancers, cancers with a false-negative assessment had a more favourable tumour size (T1a-c, 87.3% versus T1a-c, 46.4%; p<0.001) and showed significantly fewer cases with axillary lymph node metastases (22.5% versus 48.2%; p<0.001). Between hospitals having performed the workup of at least 500 referred women each, the percentage of women with a false-negative assessment varied from 5.0% to 9.1% (p=0.03). In these hospitals, improper classification of lesions at diagnostic mammography comprised 64.4% of false-negative assessments. CONCLUSION: We found that 6.5% of recalled women experienced a delay in breast cancer diagnosis, with significant performance variations between hospitals.