Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

PURPOSE: To compare measures of diagnostic accuracy between large concurrent cohorts of women screened with digital computed radiography (CR), direct radiography (DR), and screen-film mammography (SFM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board; informed consent was not required. Three concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years who were screened from 2008-2009 in the Ontario Breast Screening Program with SFM (487,334 screening examinations, 403,688 women), DR (254,758 screening examinations, 220,520 women), or CR (74,140 screening examinations, 64,210 women) were followed for 2 years or until breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancers were classified as screening-detected or interval on the basis of the woman's final screening and assessment results. Interval cancer rate (per 10 000 negative screening examinations), sensitivity, and specificity were compared across the cohorts by using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Interval cancer rates were higher, although not significantly so, for CR (15.2 per 10,000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.8, 17.8) and were similar for DR (13.7 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.4, 15.0) compared with SFM (13.0 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.1, 13.9). For CR versus SFM, specificity was similar while sensitivity was significantly lower (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.83; P = .001), particularly for invasive cancers detected at a rescreening examination, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with no family history, and for postmenopausal women. For DR versus SFM, sensitivity was similar while specificity was lower (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.98; P = .01), particularly for rescreening examinations, for women aged 60-74 years, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with a family history, and for women who were postmenopausal. CONCLUSION: Given the 38% lower sensitivity of CR imaging systems compared with SFM, programs should assess the continued use of this technology for breast screening.

Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.

Most studies that have examined the effects of mammographic density and hormone therapy use on breast cancer detection have included screen-film mammography. This study further examines this association in post-menopausal women screened by digital mammography. Approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board, this study identified 688,418 women of age 50-74 years screened with digital or screen-film mammography from 2008 to 2009 within the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Of 2993 eligible women with invasive breast cancer, 2450 were contacted and 1421 participated (847 screen-film mammography, 574 digital direct radiography). Mammographic density was measured by study radiologists using the standard BI-RADS classification system and by a computer-assisted method. Information on hormone therapy use was collected by a telephone-administered questionnaire. Logistic regression and two-tailed tests for significance evaluated associations between factors and detection method by mammography type. Women with >75 % radiologist-measured mammographic density compared to those with <25 % were more likely to be diagnosed with an interval than screen-detected cancer, with the difference being greater for those screened with screen-film (OR = 6.40, 95 % CI 2.30-17.85) than digital mammography (OR = 2.41, 95 % CI 0.67-8.58) and aged 50-64 years screened with screen-film mammography (OR = 10.86, 95 % CI 2.96-39.57). Recent former hormone therapy users were also at an increased risk of having an interval cancer with the association being significant for women screened with digital mammography (OR = 2.08, 95 % CI 1.17-3.71). Breast screening using digital mammography lowers the risk of having an interval cancer for post-menopausal women aged 50-64 with greater mammographic density.

Digital compared to screen-film mammography: breast cancer prognostic features in an organized screening program.

Our previous study found cancer detection rates were equivalent for direct radiography compared to screen-film mammography, while rates for computed radiography were significantly lower. This study compares prognostic features of invasive breast cancers by type of mammography. Approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board, this study identified invasive breast cancers diagnosed among concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 screened by direct radiography, computed radiography, or screen-film mammography from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009. During the study period, 816,232 mammograms were performed on 668,418 women, and 3,323 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed. Of 2,642 eligible women contacted, 2,041 participated (77.3 %). The final sample size for analysis included 1,405 screen-detected and 418 interval cancers (diagnosed within 24 months of a negative screening mammogram). Polytomous logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between tumour characteristics and type of mammography, and between tumour characteristics and detection method. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were recorded. Cancers detected by computed radiography compared to screen-film mammography were significantly more likely to be lymph node positive (OR 1.94, 95 %CI 1.01-3.73) and have higher stage (II:I, OR 2.14, 95 %CI 1.11-4.13 and III/IV:I, OR 2.97, 95 %CI 1.02-8.59). Compared to screen-film mammography, significantly more cancers detected by direct radiography (OR 1.64, 95 %CI 1.12-2.38) were lymph node positive. Interval cancers had worse prognostic features compared to screen-detected cancers, irrespective of mammography type. Screening with computed radiography may lead to the detection of cancers with a less favourable stage distribution compared to screen-film mammography that may reflect a delayed diagnosis. Screening programs should re-evaluate their use of computed radiography for breast screening.

Cervical cancer incidence in ontario women: differing sociodemographic gradients by morphologic type (adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell).

OBJECTIVE: Identify patterns in cervical cancer incidence in Ontario according to neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics over time and by morphologic type. METHODS: Incident cases of cervical cancer diagnosed from 1991 to 2009 were obtained from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Population data and data on neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics were obtained from the Canadian Census. Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) and rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each sociodemographic characteristic, stratified by morphologic type (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma) and time period of diagnosis. RESULTS: Incidence was 51% higher in the poorest neighborhoods compared with the richest (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.42-1.61) and 7% higher in rural areas compared with urban (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13). Incidence of squamous cell carcinoma was significantly higher in the poorest neighborhoods compared with the richest (RR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.61-1.88), a trend observed for all time periods, and in rural areas compared with urban (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18). For adenocarcinoma, ASIRs in the earlier time period (1991-1998) were higher in the poorest neighborhoods compared with richest (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.57), whereas for the more recent time period (1999-2009), ASIRs were lower for women living in the poorest neighborhoods compared with the richest (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified significantly higher incidence of cervical cancer in low-income neighborhoods in Ontario. The association was especially pronounced for squamous cell carcinoma and varied by time period for adenocarcinoma. Improvements to screening and prevention efforts against oncogenic human papillomavirus strains would increase the detection of cervical cancer, adenocarcinoma especially, and may further reduce cervical cancer incidence.

Effectiveness of screening with annual magnetic resonance imaging and mammography: results of the initial screen from the ontario high risk breast screening program.

PURPOSE: The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen women age 30 to 69 years at high risk for breast cancer with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first organized screening program for women at high risk for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Performance measures after assessment were compared with screening results for 2,207 women with initial screening examinations. The following criteria were used to determine eligibility: known mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or other gene predisposing to a markedly increased risk of breast cancer, untested first-degree relative of a gene mutation carrier, family history consistent with hereditary breast cancer syndrome and estimated personal lifetime breast cancer risk ≥ 25%, or radiation therapy to the chest (before age 30 years and at least 8 years previously). RESULTS: The recall rate was significantly higher among women who had abnormal MRI alone (15.1%; 95% CI, 13.8% to 16.4%) compared with mammogram alone (6.4%; 95% CI, 5.5% to 7.3%). Of the 35 breast cancers detected (16.3 per 1,000; 95% CI, 11.2 to 22.2), none were detected by mammogram alone, 23 (65.7%) were detected by MRI alone (10.7 per 1,000; 95% CI, 6.7 to 15.8), and 25 (71%) were detected among women who were known gene mutation carriers (30.8 per 1,000, 95% CI, 19.4 to 43.7). The positive predictive value was highest for detection based on mammogram and MRI (12.4%; 95% CI, 7.3% to 19.3%). CONCLUSION: Screening with annual MRI combined with mammography has the potential to be effectively implemented into an organized breast screening program for women at high risk for breast cancer. This could be considered an important management option for known BRCA gene mutation carriers.

Clinical and prognostic factors associated with diagnostic wait times by breast cancer detection method.

INTRODUCTION: Although prognostic differences between screen-detected, interval and symptomatic breast cancers are known, factors associated with wait times to diagnosis among these three groups have not been studied. METHODS: Of the 16,373 invasive breast cancers diagnosed between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2003 in a cohort of Ontario women aged 50 to 69, a random sample (N = 2,615) were selected for chart abstraction. Eligible women were classified according to detection method; screen-detected (n = 1181), interval (n = 319) or symptomatic (n = 406). Diagnostic wait time was calculated from the initial imaging or biopsy to breast cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression analysis examined associations between diagnostic wait times dichotomized as greater or less than the median and demographic, clinical and prognostic factors separately for each detection cohort. RESULTS: Women who underwent an open biopsy had significantly longer than median wait times to diagnosis, compared to women who underwent a fine needle aspiration or core biopsy; (screen-detected OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 2.14-3.56; interval OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.50-4.35; symptomatic OR = 5.56, 95% CI = 3.33-9.30). Additionally, screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed with stage II and symptomatic cancers diagnosed at stage III or IV had significantly shorter diagnostic wait times compared to those diagnosed at stage 1 (OR = 0.66 95% CI = 0.50-0.87 and OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.25-0.85 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is consistent with expedited diagnostic work-up for breast cancers with more advanced prognostic features. Furthermore, women who had an open surgical biopsy had a greater than the median diagnostic wait time, irrespective of detection method.

Factors associated with wait times across the breast cancer treatment pathway in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Longer times from diagnosis to breast cancer treatment are associated with poorer prognosis. This study examined factors associated with wait times by phase in the breast cancer treatment pathway. METHODS: There were 1760 women eligible for the study, aged 50-69 diagnosed in Ontario with invasive breast cancer from 1995-2003. Multivariate logistic regression examined factors associated with greater than median wait times for each phase of the treatment pathway; from diagnosis to definitive surgery; from final surgery to radiotherapy without chemotherapy and from final surgery to chemotherapy. RESULTS: The median wait times were 17 days (Inter Quartile Range (IQR) = 0-31) from diagnosis to definitive surgery, 44 days (IQR = 34-56) from final surgery to postoperative chemotherapy and 75 days (IQR = 57-97) from final surgery to postoperative radiotherapy. Diagnosis during 2000-2003 compared to 1995-1999 was associated with significantly longer wait times for each phase of the treatment pathway. Higher income quintile was associated with longer wait time from diagnosis to surgery (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.05-2.06) and shorter wait times from final surgery to radiotherapy (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.96). Greater stage at diagnosis was associated with shorter wait times from diagnosis to definitive surgery (stage III vs I: OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.34-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: While diagnosis during the latter part of the study period was associated with significantly longer wait times for all phases of the treatment pathway, there were variations in the associations of stage and income quintile with wait times by treatment phase. Continued assessment of factors associated with wait times across the breast cancer treatment pathway is important, as they indicate areas to be targeted for quality improvement with the ultimate goal of improving prognosis.

Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of digital direct radiography (DR) and computed radiography (CR) compared with that of screen-film mammography (SFM) in large concurrent cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board and did not require informed consent. Concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years screened with DR (n = 220 520), CR (n = 64 210), or SFM (n = 403 688) between 2008 and 2009 were identified and followed for 12 months. Performance was compared between cohorts, with SFM as the referent cohort. Associations were examined by using mixed-effect logistic regression. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate was similar for DR (4.9 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7, 5.2) and SFM (4.8 per 1000; 95% CI: 4.7, 5.0); however, the rate was significantly lower for CR (3.4 per 1000; 95% CI: 3.0, 3.9) (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.93). Recall rates were higher for DR (7.7%; 95% CI: 7.6%, 7.8%) and lower for CR (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.5%, 6.7%) than for SFM (7.4%; 95% CI: 7.3%, 7.5%). Positive predictive value was lower for CR (5.2%; 95% CI: 4.7%, 5.8%) than for SFM (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.4%, 6.8%); however, the adjusted odds were not significant. CONCLUSION: Although DR is equivalent to SFM for breast screening among women aged 50-74 years, the cancer detection rate was lower for CR. Screening programs should monitor the performance of CR separately and may consider informing women of the potentially lower cancer detection rates.