Does Diffusely Infiltrating Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast Arise from Epithelial-Mesenchymal Hybrid Cells?

Classic diffusely infiltrating lobular carcinoma has imaging features divergent from the breast cancers originating from the terminal ductal lobular units and from the major lactiferous ducts. Although the term "invasive lobular carcinoma" implies a site of origin within the breast lobular epithelium, we were unable to find evidence supporting this assumption. Exceptional excess of fibrous connective tissue and the unique cell architecture combined with the aberrant features at breast imaging suggest that this breast malignancy has not originated from cells lining the breast ducts and lobules. The only remaining relevant component of the fibroglandular tissue is the mesenchyme. The cells freshly isolated and cultured from diffusely infiltrating lobular carcinoma cases contained epithelial-mesenchymal hybrid cells with both epithelial and mesenchymal properties. The radiologic and histopathologic features of the tumours and expression of the mesenchymal stem cell positive markers CD73, CD90, and CD105 all suggest development in the direction of mesenchymal transition. These hybrid cells have tumour-initiating potential and have been shown to have poor prognosis and resistance to therapy targeted for malignancies of breast epithelial origin. Our work emphasizes the need for new approaches to the diagnosis and therapy of this highly fatal breast cancer subtype.

Beneficial Effect of Consecutive Screening Mammography Examinations on Mortality from Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study.

Background Previously, the risk of death from breast cancer was analyzed for women participating versus those not participating in the last screening examination before breast cancer diagnosis. Consecutive attendance patterns may further refine estimates. Purpose To estimate the effect of participation in successive mammographic screening examinations on breast cancer mortality. Materials and Methods Participation data for Swedish women eligible for screening mammography in nine counties from 1992 to 2016 were linked with data from registries and regional cancer centers for breast cancer diagnosis, cause, and date of death (Uppsala University ethics committee registration number: 2017/147). Incidence-based breast cancer mortality was calculated by whether the women had participated in the most recent screening examination prior to diagnosis only (intermittent participants), the penultimate screening examination only (lapsed participants), both examinations (serial participants), or neither examination (serial nonparticipants). Rates were analyzed with Poisson regression. We also analyzed incidence of breast cancers proving fatal within 10 years. Results Data were available for a total average population of 549 091 women (average age, 58.9 years ± 6.7 [standard deviation]). The numbers of participants in the four groups were as follows: serial participants, 392 135; intermittent participants, 41 746; lapsed participants, 30 945; and serial nonparticipants, 84 265. Serial participants had a 49% lower risk of breast cancer mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.51; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.55; P < .001) and a 50% lower risk of death from breast cancer within 10 years of diagnosis (RR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.55; P < .001) than serial nonparticipants. Lapsed and intermittent participants had a smaller reduction. Serial participants had significantly lower risk of both outcomes than lapsed or intermittent participants. Analyses correcting for potential biases made little difference to the results. Conclusion Women participating in the last two breast cancer screening examinations prior to breast cancer diagnosis had the largest reduction in breast cancer death. Missing either one of the last two examinations conferred a significantly higher risk. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Stephen A. Feig in this issue.

Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: Results in 549,091 women.

BACKGROUND: It is of paramount importance to evaluate the impact of participation in organized mammography service screening independently from changes in breast cancer treatment. This can be done by measuring the incidence of fatal breast cancer, which is based on the date of diagnosis and not on the date of death. METHODS: Among 549,091 women, covering approximately 30% of the Swedish screening-eligible population, the authors calculated the incidence rates of 2473 breast cancers that were fatal within 10 years after diagnosis and the incidence rates of 9737 advanced breast cancers. Data regarding each breast cancer diagnosis and the cause and date of death of each breast cancer case were gathered from national Swedish registries. Tumor characteristics were collected from regional cancer centers. Aggregated data concerning invitation and participation were provided by Sectra Medical Systems AB. Incidence rates were analyzed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Women who participated in mammography screening had a statistically significant 41% reduction in their risk of dying of breast cancer within 10 years (relative risk, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51-0.68 [P < .001]) and a 25% reduction in the rate of advanced breast cancers (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84 [P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reductions in the incidence rate of breast cancers that were fatal within 10 years after diagnosis and in the advanced breast cancer rate were found in this contemporaneous comparison of women participating versus those not participating in screening. These benefits appeared to be independent of recent changes in treatment regimens.

The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening.

BACKGROUND: Women and their health care providers need a reliable answer to this important question: If a woman chooses to participate in regular mammography screening, then how much will this choice improve her chances of avoiding a death from breast cancer compared with women who choose not to participate? METHODS: To answer this question, we used comprehensive registries for population, screening history, breast cancer incidence, and disease-specific death data in a defined population in Dalarna County, Sweden. The annual incidence of breast cancer was calculated along with the annual incidence of breast cancers that were fatal within 10 and within 11 to 20 years of diagnosis among women aged 40 to 69 years who either did or did not participate in mammography screening during a 39-year period (1977-2015). For an additional comparison, corresponding data are presented from 19 years of the prescreening period (1958-1976). All patients received stage-specific therapy according to the latest national guidelines, irrespective of the mode of detection. RESULTS: The benefit for women who chose to participate in an organized breast cancer screening program was a 60% lower risk of dying from breast cancer within 10 years after diagnosis (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.48) and a 47% lower risk of dying from breast cancer within 20 years after diagnosis (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.63) compared with the corresponding risks for nonparticipants. CONCLUSIONS: Although all patients with breast cancer stand to benefit from advances in breast cancer therapy, the current results demonstrate that women who have participated in mammography screening obtain a significantly greater benefit from the therapy available at the time of diagnosis than do those who have not participated.

Initiators and promoters for the occurrence of screen-detected breast cancer and the progression to clinically-detected interval breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors responsible for breast cancer have been well documented, but the roles of risk factors as initiators, causing the occurrence of screen-detected breast cancer, or promoters, responsible for the progression of the screen-detected to the clinically-detected breast cancer, have been scarcely evaluated. METHODS: We used data from women in a cohort in Kopparberg (Dalarna), Sweden between 1977 and 2010. Conventional risk factors, breast density, and tumor-specific biomarkers are superimposed to the temporal course of the natural history of the disease. RESULTS: The results show that older age at first full-term pregnancy, dense breast, and a family history of breast cancer increased the risk of entering the preclinical screen-detectable phase of breast cancer by 23%, 41%, and 89%, respectively. Overweight/obesity (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2) was a significant initiator (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.33), but was inversely associated with the role of promoter (aRR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82). Dense breast (aRR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.12-1.91), triple-negative (aRR 2.07; 95% CI, 1.37-3.15), and Ki-67 positivity (aRR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.19-2.30) were statistically significant promoters. When the molecular biomarkers were considered collectively as one classification, the basal-like subtype was the most influential subtype on promoters (aRR 4.24; 95% CI, 2.56-7.02) compared with the Luminal A subtype. DISCUSSION: We ascertained state-dependent covariates of initiators and promoters to classify the risk of the two-step progression of breast cancer. The results of the current study are useful for individually-tailored screening and personalized clinical surveillance of patients with breast cancer that was detected at an early stage.

Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study.

PURPOSE: To determine improvement in breast cancer detection by using supplemental three-dimensional (3D) automated breast (AB) ultrasonography (US) with screening mammography versus screening mammography alone in asymptomatic women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. The SomoInsight Study was an observational, multicenter study conducted between 2009 and 2011. A total of 15 318 women (mean age, 53.3 years ± 10 [standard deviation]; range, 25-94 years) presenting for screening mammography alone with heterogeneously (50%-75%) or extremely (>75%) dense breasts were included, regardless of further risk characterization, and were followed up for 1 year. Participants underwent screening mammography alone followed by an AB US examination; results were interpreted sequentially. McNemar test was used to assess differences in cancer detection. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed at screening in 112 women: 82 with screening mammography and an additional 30 with AB US. Addition of AB US to screening mammography yielded an additional 1.9 detected cancers per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 2.7; P < .001). Of cancers detected with screening mammography, 62.2% (51 of 82) were invasive versus 93.3% (28 of 30) of additional cancers detected with AB US (P = .001). Of the 82 cancers detected with either screening mammography alone or the combined read, 17 were detected with screening mammography alone. Of these, 64.7% (11 of 17) were ductal carcinoma in situ versus 6.7% (two of 30) of cancers detected with AB US alone. Sensitivity for the combined read increased by 26.7% (95% CI: 18.3%, 35.1%); the increase in the recall rate per 1000 women screened was 284.9 (95% CI: 278.0, 292.2; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Addition of AB US to screening mammography in a generalizable cohort of women with dense breasts increased the cancer detection yield of clinically important cancers, but it also increased the number of false-positive results.

Insights from the breast cancer screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs.

It is desirable to have a strategy for evaluation of breast cancer service screening programs years before the long-term breast cancer mortality data are available. Since successful mammography screening has a significant impact on two components of the TNM (tumor size, node status, presence or absence of distant metastases) classification system, tumor size and node status, we investigated the effect of the randomized breast screening trials on incidence of advanced stage disease and on the subsequent breast cancer death rate. In the trials that achieved a 20% or greater reduction in advanced stage disease, there was an average breast cancer mortality reduction of 28% among women invited to screening (attenders and nonattenders combined). In the trials that achieved a reduction in advanced stage disease of less than 10%, there was no reduction in breast cancer mortality among women invited to screening. This study provides evidence that the average mortality reduction in all the trials underestimates the true mortality reduction, and that substantially greater breast cancer mortality reductions can be expected in screening programs that are effective in reducing advanced stage breast cancer. In addition, monitoring the incidence of advanced stage breast cancer in an ongoing screening program can provide a sensitive and early indicator of the subsequent mortality from the disease.

Beneficial effect of repeated participation in breast cancer screening upon survival.

OBJECTIVES: The benefit of mammography screening in reducing population mortality from breast cancer is well established. In this paper, we estimate the effect of repeated participation at scheduled screens on case survival. METHODS: We analysed incidence and survival data on 37,079 women from nine Swedish counties who had at least one to five invitation(s) to screening prior to diagnosis, and were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1992 and 2016. Of these, 4564 subsequently died of breast cancer. We estimated the association of survival with participation in up to the most recent five screens before diagnosis. We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the effect on survival of the number of scheduled screens in which subjects participated prior to the diagnosis of breast cancer. RESULTS: There was successively better survival with an increasing number of screens in which the subject participated. For a woman with five previous screening invitations who participated in all five, the hazard ratio was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.33, p < 0.0001) compared to a woman attending none (86.9% vs 68.9% 20-year survival). Following a conservative adjustment for potential self-selection factors, the hazard ratio was 0.34 (95% CI 0.26-0.43, p < 0.0001), an approximate three-fold reduction in the hazard of dying from breast cancer. CONCLUSION: For those women who develop breast cancer, regular prior participation in mammography screening confers significantly better survival.

Multifocal breast cancer documented in large-format histology sections: long-term follow-up results by molecular phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of molecular phenotype in breast cancer is well established in the literature. Recent studies have demonstrated that subgross lesion distribution (unifocal, multifocal, and diffuse) and disease extent also carry prognostic significance in this disease. However, the correlation of molecular phenotypes with subgross parameters has not yet been investigated in detail. METHODS: In total, 444 consecutive invasive breast cancers that were documented in large-format histology slides and worked up with detailed radiologic-pathologic correlation were sampled into tissue microarray blocks and stained immunohistochemically to delineate the molecular subtypes. RESULTS: Diffuse or multifocal distribution of the invasive component of breast carcinomas in this series was associated with a 4.14-fold respectively 2.75-fold risk of cancer-related death compared with unifocal tumors irrespective of molecular phenotype. Patients who had human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive cancers; estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative, and HER2-negative (triple-negative) cancers; or basal-like cancers had a 2.18-fold, 2.33-fold, and 4.07-fold risk of dying of disease, respectively, compared with patients who had luminal A carcinomas. Unifocal luminal A, HER2-positive, and basal-like cancers were associated with significantly better long-term survival outcomes than their multifocal or diffuse counterparts; luminal B and triple-negative tumors also had the same tendency. In multivariate analysis, patient age, tumor size category, lymph node status, lesion distribution, and molecular phenotypes remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Multifocality and diffuse distribution of the invasive component were associated with significantly poorer survival in women with breast carcinomas compared with unifocal disease in patients with luminal A, HER2 type, and basal-like cancers. Molecular classification of breast cancer is a powerful tool but gains in power when combined with conventional and subgross morphologic parameters.

Can we improve breast cancer management using an image-guided histopathology workup supported by larger histopathology sections?

PURPOSE: Breast radiologists examine the entire breast in full-size images, while breast pathologists examine small tissue samples at high magnification. The diagnostic information from these complementary imaging approaches can be difficult to integrate for a more clinically relevant evaluation of malignancies spanning several centimetres. We have explored the advantages and disadvantages of imaging guided larger section pathology techniques compared with the standard 2 × 2.5 cm. small section technique. METHODS: We compared the ability of conventional small section histopathology with larger section histopathology techniques to examine surgical resection margins and full disease extent. We evaluated the pre-surgical imaging workup and use of microfocus magnification radiography of sliced surgical specimens in the histopathologic evaluation of disease extent and status of surgical margins. RESULTS: Image assisted large section histopathology of excised breast tissue enables comprehensive examination of an approximately tenfold larger contiguous tissue area than is provided by conventional small section technology. Attempting to cover the full area of each consecutive slice of resected tissue is more labour-intensive and expensive with the small section approach and poses challenges in reconstituting three-dimensional tumour architecture after morcellation and sectioning. Restricting histopathologic examination to a limited number of samples provides an incomplete evaluation of surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: A considerably improved documentation of breast cancer and a more reliable assessment of tissue margins is provided by using larger sized histopathology samples to correlate with breast imaging findings. These in turn can enable more appropriate treatment planning, improved surgical performance, fewer recurrences, and better patient outcome. Uncertainty of surgical margin evaluation inherent to the standard small section technique can lead to inappropriate decisions in surgical management and adjunctive therapy. Progress in breast diagnosis and treatment will largely depend on whether histopathology terminology and technique will undergo a revolution similar to the one that has already occurred in breast imaging.

The term "classic invasive lobular carcinoma" of the breast defines breast malignancies of vastly different nature.

PURPOSE: To describe in detail the special features of a previously unappreciated "classic invasive lobular carcinoma" which is confined to the terminal ductal lobular units (TDLUs) and differs considerably from the extensive classic invasive lobular carcinoma, and to suggest specific terminology. METHOD: All invasive breast cancer cases without associated microcalcifications diagnosed in our Institution with the histopathologic diagnosis of classic invasive lobular carcinoma during the years 1996-2019 (n = 560) formed the basis of this study. The cases were prospectively classified according to their imaging biomarkers (mammographic features) and followed up to Dec 31, 2021, to determine long-term patient outcome. An additional 2600 invasive breast cancer cases (diagnosed other than invasive lobular carcinoma) without associated microcalcifications served as a reference group. Detailed histopathologic analysis used large format (10x8 cm) thin section technique and staining methods including hematoxylin-eosin (H&E), E-cadherin, cytokeratin CK 5/6, a transmembrane glycoprotein (CD44) and anti-actin or anti-smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. RESULTS: The imaging biomarkers differentiated two separate disease subgroups, having the same histopathologic diagnosis, classic invasive lobular carcinoma. One of these has the imaging biomarker of extensive architectural distortion with no central tumour mass, occupies the extralobular mesenchyme and has a long-term survival of 56%. The other subgroup forms stellate or circular non-calcified tumour masses usually smaller than 20 mm, which appear to arise in the intralobular mesenchyme, and has a significantly better long-term survival of 84%. CONCLUSIONS: There is a striking difference between the subgross histopathology and the mammographic appearance (imaging biomarkers) of two breast malignancies having the same histopathologic diagnosis, "classic invasive lobular carcinoma". The large difference in the long-term outcome of these two tumour types is even more striking. Using the same specific term, "classic invasive lobular carcinoma", to describe these two separate entities can adversely affect management decisions.

A plea for more careful scholarship in reviewing evidence: the case of mammographic screening.

Objectives: To identify issues of principle and practice giving rise to misunderstandings in reviewing evidence, to illustrate these by reference to the Nordic Cochrane Review (NCR) and its interpretation of two trials of mammographic screening, and to draw lessons for future reviewing of published results. Methods: A narrative review of the publications of the Nordic Cochrane Review of mammographic screening (NCR), the Swedish Two-County Trial (S2C) and the Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1 and 2 (CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2). Results: The NCR concluded that the S2C was unreliable, despite the review's complaints being shown to be mistaken, by direct reference to the original primary publications of the S2C. Repeated concerns were expressed by others about potential subversion of randomisation in CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2; however, the NCR continued to rely heavily on the results of these trials. Since 2022, however, eyewitness evidence of such subversion has been in the public domain. Conclusions: An over-reliance on nominal satisfaction of checklists of criteria in systematic reviewing can lead to erroneous conclusions. This occurred in the case of the NCR, which concluded that mammographic screening was ineffective or minimally effective. Broader and more even-handed reviews of the evidence show that screening confers a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality. Advances in knowledge: Those carrying out systematic reviews should be aware of the dangers of over-reliance on checklists and guidelines. Readers of systematic reviews should be aware that a systematic review is just another study, with the capability that all studies have of coming to incorrect conclusions. When a review seems to overturn the current position, it is essential to revisit the publications of the primary research.

Multifocal and diffusely infiltrating breast cancers are highly fatal subgroups needing further improvement in diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Physicians treating breast cancer patients often wonder why this dreaded disease is still fatal in some women despite our best diagnostic and therapeutic efforts. Our own studies on prospectively documented cases spanning several decades have given us new insights for approaching this problem. By using imaging biomarkers to classify breast cancer subtypes according to their apparent site of origin, we found that a majority of breast cancer deaths (71%) occur in a minority of breast cancers (45%). Breast cancer deaths are significantly more likely to occur in women with multifocal acinar adenocarcinoma of the breast, AAB (13.1%), diffusely invasive breast cancers of ductal origin, DAB (24 %) and breast malignancies of mesenchymal hybrid cell origin, BCMO (33.7%) compared with women having unifocal invasive breast cancers (6.1%). Preventing more of these fatal events will require a re-evaluation of the current imperfect histopathologic terminology of breast cancer with special attention to the diffuse breast cancer subtypes, intensification of multimodality imaging and multidisciplinary management, as well as application of image guided large format histopathology.

The challenging imaging and histopathologic features of diffusely infiltrating breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical, imaging and outcome observations indicate that diffusely infiltrating breast cancer, presenting as a large region of architectural distortion on the mammogram and conventionally termed classic infiltrating lobular carcinoma of diffuse type, represents a very unusual breast malignancy. This article aims to draw attention to the complex clinical, imaging, and large format thin and thick section histopathologic features of this malignancy, which challenges our current diagnostic and therapeutic management practices. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the randomized controlled trial (1977-85) and from the subsequent, ongoing population-based mammography service screening (1985-2019) with more than four decades of follow up in Dalarna County, Sweden provided the database for investigating this breast cancer subtype. Large format thick (subgross) and thin section histopathologic images of breast cancers diagnosed as "diffusely infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast" were correlated with their mammographic tumour features (imaging biomarkers) and the long-term patient outcome. RESULTS: This malignancy does not have a distinct tumour mass or focal skin retraction at clinical breast examination; instead, it causes an indistinct "thickening" and eventually shrinks the entire breast. A dominant feature is extensive architectural distortion on the mammograms caused by an excessive amount of cancer-associated connective tissue. Unlike other invasive breast malignancies, this subtype forms concave contours with the surrounding adipose connective tissue, a feature that makes it difficult to detect on mammograms. Women with this diffusely infiltrating breast malignancy have a 60% long-term survival. Its long-term patient outcome is surprisingly poor compared to that expected from its relatively favourable immunohistochemical biomarkers, including a low proliferation index and remains unaffected by adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The unusual clinical, histopathologic and imaging features of this diffusely infiltrating breast cancer subtype are consistent with a site of origin quite different from that of other breast cancers. Additionally, the immunohistochemical biomarkers are deceptive and unreliable because they indicate a cancer with favourable prognostic features predictive of a good long-term outcome. The low proliferation index is usually indicative of a breast cancer with a good prognosis, but in this subtype the prognosis is poor. If we are to improve the dismal outcome of this malignancy, it will be necessary to clarify its true site of origin, which will be a prerequisite for gaining a better understanding why current management efforts often fail and why the fatality rate is so unfortunately high. Breast radiologists should be watchful for the development of subtle signs of architectural distortion at mammography. Large format histopathologic technique enables adequate correlation of the imaging and histopathologic findings.

Imaging biomarkers are underutilised but highly predictive prognostic factors for the more fatal breast cancer subtypes.

PURPOSE: The development and refinement of breast imaging modalities offer a wealth of diagnostic information such as imaging biomarkers, which are primarily the mammographic appearance of the various breast cancer subtypes. These are readily available preoperatively at the time of diagnosis and can enhance the prognostic value of currently used molecular biomarkers. In this study, we investigated the relative utility of the molecular and imaging biomarkers, both jointly and independently, when predicting long-term patient outcome according to the site of tumour origin. METHODS: We evaluated the association of imaging biomarkers and conventional molecular biomarkers, (ER, PR, HER-2, Ki67), separately and combined, with long-term patient outcome in all breast cancer cases having complete data on both imaging and molecular biomarkers (n = 2236) diagnosed in our Institute during the period 2008-2019. Large format histopathology technique was used to document intra- and intertumoural heterogeneity and select the appropriate foci for evaluating molecular biomarkers. RESULTS: The breast cancer imaging biomarkers were strongly predictive of long-term patient outcome. The molecular biomarkers were predictive of outcome only for unifocal acinar adenocarcinoma of the breast (AAB), but less reliable in the multifocal AAB cases due to variability of molecular biomarkers in the individual tumour foci. In breast cancer of mesenchymal origin (BCMO), conventionally termed classic invasive lobular carcinoma, and in cancers originating from the major lactiferous ducts (ductal adenocarcinoma of the breast, DAB), the molecular biomarkers misleadingly indicated favourable prognosis, whereas the imaging biomarkers in BCMO and DAB reliably indicated the high risk of breast cancer death. Among the 2236 breast cancer cases, BCMO and DAB comprised 21% of the breast cancer cases, but accounted for 45% of the breast cancer deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of imaging biomarkers into the diagnostic workup of breast cancer yields a more precise, comprehensive and prognostically accurate diagnostic report. This is particularly necessary in multifocal AAB cases having intertumoural heterogeneity, in diffuse carcinomas (DAB and BCMO), and in cases with combined DAB and AAB. In such cases, the imaging biomarkers should be prioritised over molecular biomarkers in planning treatment because the latter fail to predict the severity of the disease. In combination with the use of the large section histopathology technique, imaging biomarkers help alleviate some of the current problems in breast cancer management, such as over- and under-assessment of disease extent, which carry the risk of overtreatment and undertreatment.

Long-term incidence of breast cancer by trial arm in one county of the Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening.

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the excess incidence (overdiagnosis) of breast cancer associated with starting mammographic screening at an earlier age, by using data from the Dalarna County component of the Swedish Two-County Trial of breast cancer screening. METHODS: In Dalarna County, Sweden, 38,589 women aged 40 to 74 years were randomized to invitation to regular mammographic screening (active study population [ASP]) and 18,582 women to usual care (passive study population [PSP]). After 3 screening rounds (6-8 years after randomization), the PSP was invited to screening. The cumulative incidence of breast cancer was calculated in the ASP and PSP from randomization to 29 years later. In addition, cumulative incidence was calculated for invasive cancers, advanced invasive cancers (≥ 2 cm in maximum diameter or node-positive), and nonadvanced cancers (<2 cm and node negative). RESULTS: There was no excess of cancers in the ASP at 29 year follow-up (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.08). Cumulative incidence in the 2 arms approximately equalized at the conclusion of the first round of screening of the PSP. There was an excess of nonadvanced cancers and a deficit of advanced cancers in the ASP, both of which persisted to 29 years. CONCLUSIONS: There was no additional breast cancer incidence associated with 100,000 additional screens in the ASP. Results suggest that overdiagnosis is small and largely confined to the prevalence screen.

Breast cancer screening: the evolving evidence.

Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer among women in the developed and developing world. Detecting and treating breast cancer earlier in its natural history improve prognosis and result in a reduction in breast cancer mortality. There have been eight population-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mammography screening, which individually and collectively provide strong support for the efficacy of breast cancer screening. The evaluation of modern service screening also has shown that modern breast cancer screening is contributing to reductions in breast cancer mortality at a rate as good as or better than that observed in the RCTs. In the last decade, different interpretations of the evidence from the RCTs and observational studies have resulted in different screening guidelines and contentious academic debates over the balance of benefits and potential harms from breast cancer screening. In this paper, the historic and recent evidence supporting the value of breast cancer screening will be described, along with the underpinnings of the current debate over the relative and absolute benefit of regular mammography screening.

Improved differentiation between ductal and acinar prostate cancer using three-dimensional histology and biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to refine the methodology for discriminating the ductal (DAP) and acinar adenocarcinomas (AAP) of the prostate and confirm that prostate carcinoma of ductal origin is a more aggressive subtype. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 110 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases operated on between 2000 and 2006 and worked up using large-format "two-dimensional" (2D; 4 µm thick) and "three-dimensional" (3D; 1500 µm thick) histology sections was carried out, with an average follow-up of 5.1 years. The same material was also analysed for selected biomarkers in tissue microarray blocks. The most discriminatory biomarkers were then tested on preoperative core biopsy specimens from 24 of these patients. RESULTS: 3D histology classified 97/110 (88%) cases of AAP and 13/110 (12%) DAP, which was then confirmed in 2D specimens. The DAP cases had a significantly greater frequency of pT3a and more advanced cancers, > 20 mm tumour focus, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, Gleason score ≥ 7, positive margin, extracapsular extension, vascular invasion, seminal vesicle infiltration, biochemical/local recurrence, regional lymph-node metastases and distant metastases. Three biomarkers in combination (chromogranin A, epidermal growth factor receptor and p53] distinguished DAP from AAP with an accuracy of 94% (area under the curve 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.99). The same high accuracy was achieved using these three biomarkers on the preoperative specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Both 3D histology and the three selected biomarkers can help in accurately distinguishing DAP from AAP. The clear-cut distinction of two forms of prostate cancers by the approach advocated in this paper would allow AAP patients to undergo less radical treatment and would segregate DAP patients into a subset requiring more effective treatment regimens.