Trends in the pre-operative diagnosis and surgical management of axillary lymph node metastases in women with screen-detected breast cancer.

AIM: The aim of the current study was to investigate time-trends in pre-operative diagnosis and surgical treatment of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancers detected at screening mammography. METHODS: We included all women who underwent screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands between 2005 and 2020. During a follow-up period of at least two years, data on clinical radiological examinations, biopsy procedures and surgical interventions were obtained. The 15 years of inclusion were divided into five cohorts of three years each. RESULTS: Of the 4049 women with invasive breast cancer, 22.1 % (896/4049) had axillary lymph node metastasis at pathology (ALN+). Percutaneous axillary biopsy was performed in 39.6 % (355/896) of these women, with the proportions of fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) decreasing from 97.6 % (40/41) in 2005-2007 to 41.6 % (37/89) in 2017-2019 and core needle biopsy (CNB) rising from 2.4 % (1/41) in 2005-2007 to 58.4 % (52/89) in 2017-2019 (P < 0.001). Sensitivity of FNAB and CNB was comparable (77.4 % (188/243, 95%CI = 71%-82 %) versus 82.4 % (103/125), 95%CI = 74%-88 %) (P = 0.26). Pre-operative confirmation of ALN + by percutaneous biopsy ranged from 27.3 % (56/205) in 2011-2013 to 39.0 % (80/205) in 2017-2019, with no significant trend changes over time (P = 0.103). The proportion of ALN + women who underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) decreased from 96.0 % (97/101) in 2005-2007 to 16.6 % (34/205) in 2017-2019 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pre-operative confirmation of axillary lymph node metastasis by ultrasound-guided biopsy did not rise despite the increased use of CNB at the expense of less invasive FNAB. A significant reduction in ALND was observed through the years.

Evaluation of National Surgical Practice for Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer in an Untrained Setting.

BACKGROUND: Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level. METHODS: Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either 'node-picking' (the removal of an individual LLN) or 'partial regional node dissection' (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (≥7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those  undergoing only rectal resection. RESULTS: Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2-2.5, p = 0.874). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research.

Effects of nonparticipation at previous screening rounds on the characteristics of screen-detected breast cancers.

PURPOSE: We determined the incidence and effects of different screening intervals prior to a true positive recall on the tumour characteristics of screen-detected cancers (SDC) and interval cancers (ICs) at biennial screening mammography. METHODS: A consecutive series of 553020 subsequent screens was included, obtained in a Dutch screening region between January 2009 and July 2019. During 2-year follow-up, we obtained data on radiological procedures, pathology and surgical interventions of all recalled women. RESULTS: A total of 13,221 women were recalled (2.4% recall rate), yielding 3662 women with a SDC (6.6 SDCs per 1000 screen). Of these, 3477 (94.9%) had attended their two most recent screens as scheduled (i.e., 2-year screening interval), whereas the interval between the two most recent screens was four years or at least six years in respectively 132 (3.6%) and 53 (1.4%) women. There was a trend of higher cancer detection rates in case of longer screening intervals. The proportions of DCIS versus invasive cancer, as well as tumour histology, tumour size, axillary lymph node status, B&R grading, hormone receptor status and type of surgical treatment (breast conserving surgery or mastectomy) were comparable for women with a 2-year or 4-year interval between their two latest screens. SDCs in women with at least six years between their two latest screens were more frequently estrogen receptor negative or triple negative and were more frequently treated by mastectomy. All tumour characteristics mentioned above were less favourable for ICs than SDCs. CONCLUSIONS: A vast majority of women with a SDC had a 2-year screening interval between their two latest screens. A screening interval of at least six years had a slight negative influence on the tumour characteristics and treatment of SDCs.

Failure of stereotactic core needle biopsy in women recalled for suspicious calcifications at screening mammography: frequency, causes, and final outcome in a multi-institutional, observational follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: We determined the failure rate of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) and its causes and final outcome in women recalled for calcifications at screening mammography. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 624,039 screens obtained in a Dutch screening region between January 2009 and July 2019. Radiology reports and pathology results were obtained of all recalled women during 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3495 women (19.6% of 17,809 recalls) were recalled for suspicious calcifications. SCNB was indicated in 2818 women, of whom 12 had incomplete follow-up and another 12 women refused biopsy. DCIS or invasive cancer was diagnosed in 880 of the remaining 2794 women (31.5%). SCNB failed in 62 women (2.2%, 36/2794). These failures were mainly due to a too posterior (n = 30) or too superficial location (n = 17) of the calcifications or calcifications too faint for biopsy (n = 13). Of these 62 women, 10 underwent surgical biopsy, yielding one DCIS (intermediate grade) and two invasive cancers (one intermediate grade and one high grade) and another two women were diagnosed with DCIS (both high grade) at follow-up. Thus, the malignancy rate after SCNB failure was 8.1% (5/62). Calcifications were depicted neither at SCNB specimen radiography nor at pathology in 16 women after (repeated) SCNB (0.6%, 31/2732). None of them proved to have breast cancer at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of SCNB for suspicious calcifications is low but close surveillance is warranted, as breast cancer may be present in up to 8% of these women. KEY POINTS: • The failure rate of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) for calcifications recalled at screening mammography was 2.2%. • Failures were mainly due to calcifications that could not be reached by SCNB or calcifications too faint for biopsy. • The management after failed SCNB was various. At least, close surveillance with a low threshold for surgical biopsy is recommended as breast cancer may be present in up to 8% of women with SCNB failure.

Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem solving tool in women recalled at biennial screening mammography: A population-based study in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: Problem solving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to exclude malignancy in women with equivocal findings on conventional imaging. However, recommendations on its use for women recalled after screening are lacking. This study evaluates the impact of problem solving MRI on diagnostic workup among women recalled from the Dutch screening program, as well as time trends and inter-hospital variation in its use. METHODS: Women who were recalled at screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands (2008-2017) were included. Two-year follow-up data were collected. Diagnostic-workup and accuracy of problem solving MRI were evaluated and time trends and inter-hospital variation in its use were examined. RESULTS: In the study period 16,175 women were recalled, of whom 906 underwent problem solving MRI. Almost half of the women (45.4%) who underwent problem solving MRI were referred back to the screening program without further workup. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of problem solving MRI were 98.2%, 70.0%, 31.1%, and 99.6%, respectively. The percentage of recalled women receiving problem solving MRI fluctuated over time (4.7%-7.2%) and significantly varied among hospitals (2.2%-7.0%). CONCLUSION: The use of problem solving MRI may exclude malignancy in recalled women. The use of problem solving MRI varied over time and among hospitals, which indicates the need for guidelines on problem solving MRI.

Mammographic changes resulting from benign breast surgery impair breast cancer detection at screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To study possible explanations for lower screening performance after previous benign breast surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 351,009 screening examinations in 85,274 women, obtained between January 1, 1997 and January 1, 2009. The examinations of women with screen detected cancers (SDC) or interval cancers (IC), diagnosed after previous benign breast surgery, were reviewed by two screening radiologists. They determined the presence and degree of post surgical changes, classified breast density and determined whether mammographic interpretation was hampered by tissue characteristics. They also assessed whether the cancer had already been visible at a previous screen. RESULTS: Screening sensitivity was lower in women with prior benign breast surgery than without (63.5% (115/181) versus 73.5% (1643/2236), p=0.004). A total of 115 SDCs and 66 ICs were diagnosed in breasts after previous benign breast surgery. Post surgical mammographic alterations in the breast segment where cancer was diagnosed were more distinct in ICs than in SDCs (p=0.001). Women with post surgical mammographic changes at the location of the breast cancer had an increased interval cancer risk (OR=2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.05-4.26). Limited mammographic interpretation due to tissue characteristics was mentioned, only in three SDCs and one IC. The proportions of SDCs and ICS that were already visible at a previous screen were comparable for women with and without prior surgery (SDC: 47.5% versus 43.8%, p=0.3, IC: 50.0% versus 48.4%, p=0.8). CONCLUSION: Previous benign breast surgery decreases screening sensitivity and this is likely due to postoperative mammographic changes.

Malpractice claims following screening mammography in The Netherlands.

Although malpractice lawsuits are frequently related to a delayed breast cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients, information on claims at European screening mammography programs is lacking. We determined the type and frequency of malpractice claims at a Dutch breast cancer screening region. We included all 85,274 women (351,009 screens) who underwent biennial screening mammography at a southern breast screening region in The Netherlands between 1997 and 2009. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening mammograms of all screen detected cancers and interval cancers and determined whether the cancer had been missed at the previous screen or at the latest screen, respectively. We analyzed all correspondence between the screening organization, clinicians and screened women, and collected complaints and claims until September 2011. At review, 20.9% (308/1,475) of screen detected cancers and 24.3% (163/670) of interval cancers were considered to be missed at a previous screen. A total of 19 women (of which 2, 6 and 11 women had been screened between 1997 and 2001 (102,439 screens), 2001 and 2005 (114,740 screens) and 2005 and 2009 (133,830 screens), respectively) had contacted the screening organization for additional information about their screen detected cancer or interval cancer, but filed no claim. Three other women directly initiated an insurance claim for financial compensation of their interval cancer without previously having contacted the screening organization. We conclude that screening-related claims were rarely encountered, although many screen detected cancers and interval cancers had been missed at a previous screen. A small but increasing proportion of women sought additional information about their breast cancer from the screening organization.

Lower sensitivity of screening mammography after previous benign breast surgery.

Few data are available on the effect of previous benign breast surgery on screening mammography accuracy. We determined whether sensitivity of screening mammography and tumor characteristics are different for women with and without previous benign breast surgery. We included a consecutive series of 317,398 screening mammograms of women screened between 1997 and 2008. During 2-year follow-up, clinical data, breast imaging, biopsy and surgery reports were collected from women with screen-detected or interval breast cancers. Screening sensitivity, tumor biology and tumor stages were compared between 168 women with breast cancer and prior ipsilateral benign breast surgery and 2,039 women with breast cancer but without previous ipsilateral, benign breast surgery. The sensitivity of screening mammography was significantly lower for women with prior surgery [64.3% (108/168) versus 73.4% (1,496/2,039), p = 0.01]. The concomitant increased interval cancer risk remained significant after logistic regression adjustment for age and breast density (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.1). Comparing screen-detected cancers in women with and without prior breast surgery, no significant differences in estrogen receptor status (p = 0.56), mitotic activity (p = 0.17), proportions of large (T2+) tumors (p = 0.6) or lymph node positive tumors (p = 0.4) were found. Also for interval cancers, no differences were found in estrogen receptor status (p = 0.41), mitotic activity (p = 0.39), proportions of large tumors (p = 0.9) and lymph node positive tumors (p = 0.5) between women with and without prior breast surgery. We conclude that sensitivity of screening mammography is significantly lower in women with previous benign breast surgery than without, but tumor characteristics are comparable both for screen detected cancers and interval cancers.

Two-view versus single-view mammography at subsequent screening in a region of the Dutch breast screening programme.

We retrospectively determined the effect of analogue two-view mammography versus single-view mammography at subsequent screens on breast cancer detection and determined financial consequences for a current digital mammography setting. Two screening radiologists reviewed the mammograms of 536 screen detected cancers (SDCs) and 171 interval cancers (ICs) with single-view mammography (medio-lateral-oblique view) at the last but one screen (SDCs) or latest screen (ICs). They determined whether two-view mammography at the last (but one) screen could have increased the cancer detection rate at that screening round. For subsequent screens, the radiologists also assessed the percentage of SDCs and ICs that had been missed at previous two-view screening mammography (SDC) or latest two-view screening (IC), respectively. Additional personnel and digital storage costs for standard two-view mammography at subsequent screening were calculated for digital screening. Two-view mammography could have facilitated earlier cancer detection in 40.9% (219/536) of SDCs and 39.8% (68/171) of ICs. For two-view screens, 24.4% of SDCs (213/871) were missed at previous two-view screening and 29.3% of ICs (110/375) were missed at the latest screen. Overall costs increase € 1.03/screen after implementation of digital two-view mammography. Standard two-view mammography at subsequent screening may modestly increase cancer detection at an earlier stage, whereas additional screening costs are limited.