A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened.

BACKGROUND: Mortality reduction from mammographic screening is controversial. Individual randomized trials and meta-analyses demonstrate statistically significant mortality reductions in all age groups invited to screening. In women actually screened, mortality reductions are greater. Individual trials and meta-analyses show varying rates of mortality reduction, leading to questions about screening's value and whether treatment advances have diminished the importance of early detection. This study hypothesized that breast cancer deaths predominantly occurred in unscreened women. METHODS: Invasive breast cancers diagnosed between 1990 and 1999 were followed through 2007. Data included demographics, mammography use, surgical and pathology reports, and recurrence and death dates. Mammograms were categorized as screening or diagnostic based on absence or presence of breast signs or symptoms, and were substantiated by medical records. Breast cancer deaths were defined after documentation of prior distant metastases. Absence of recurrent cancer and lethal other diseases defined death from other causes. RESULTS: Invasive breast cancer failure analysis defined 7301 patients between 1990 and 1999, with 1705 documented deaths from breast cancer (n = 609) or other causes (n = 905). Among 609 confirmed breast cancer deaths, 29% were among women who had been screened (19% screen-detected and 10% interval cancers), whereas 71% were among unscreened women, including > 2 years since last mammogram (6%), or never screened (65%). Overall, 29% of cancer deaths were screened, whereas 71% were unscreened. Median age at diagnosis of fatal cancers was 49 years; in deaths not from breast cancer, median age at diagnosis was 72 years. CONCLUSIONS: Most deaths from breast cancer occur in unscreened women. To maximize mortality reduction and life-years gained, initiation of regular screening before age 50 years should be encouraged.

Streamlining HIV testing in the emergency department-leveraging kiosks to provide true universal screening: a usability study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening programs are challenged by the unsustainable cost of exogenous staff and the relatively low penetration rates. Kiosk systems have increased registration efficiency in various clinical settings and have shown promising results for advancing various public health initiatives. This study evaluated the usability of kiosks within the existing HIV testing program and assessed patients' perceived acceptability of kiosk-based screening in the ED. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: ED patients (n=88) were asked to complete both a Registration Module (intended to integrate into the ED's pending kiosk registration system) and a Risk Assessment Module using a pen-based touchscreen tablet platform. Participants provided feedback upon program completion. All comments, questions, and errors were documented. Kiosk programs tracked time spent on each screen. Quantitative (chi-squared test or t test) and qualitative data analyses were performed. RESULTS: Consented subjects (n=62) were 60% female, 69% were black, the mean ± standard deviation age was 37.8 ± 11.4 years, 52% had a high school degree or less, and 50% reported no prior kiosk experience. Mean time spent on the Registration and Risk Assessment Modules was 2:35 ± 1:24 min and 5:09 ± 1:58 min, respectively. The leading technical challenge identified was login: 84% of patients required assistance. Removal of the login screen reduced times to 1:05 ± 0:36 min and 4:10 ± 1:38 min. Ninety-five percent of subjects reported length of use as "just right," and over 75% of patients found the software easy to use, answered questions without help, and preferred screening on the kiosk to in-person interviews. Favorite aspects of the program included ease of use (52%), privacy (48%), and speed (30%). Sixty-six percent of patients reported there was nothing they disliked or would change. CONCLUSIONS: ED patient response to the kiosk system was favorable. Subjects easily and quickly navigated the program, with the exception of a login screen, which could be eliminated via automated login using ID bracelet scanners.

The non-breast-cancer death rate among breast cancer patients.

Non-breast-cancer deaths currently account for almost half of deaths among breast carcinoma patients in the 15 years following diagnosis. Understanding the trends of non-breast-cancer death is vital for calibrating treatment and survival expectations, and for understanding the consequences of potentially toxic therapies. To observe trends over time in non-breast-cancer relative survival-the non-breast-cancer survival rates of breast cancer patients relative to the non-breast-cancer survival rates of the population as a whole, matched for gender, race, age, region, and year of diagnosis. Non-breast-cancer relative survival between breast carcinoma patients and the general population was measured using SEER public-use data of patients diagnosed with breast carcinoma between 1973 and 2007. Non-breast-cancer relative survival improved significantly from 1973 to the present. From 1986 onward, the non-breast-cancer survival rate among breast carcinoma patients is equal to, or slightly higher than, matched populations who did not have breast carcinoma. This improvement over time occurred across almost all patient stratifications, including race, age, tumor size, and nodal status. However, patients receiving full mastectomies, and patients not receiving radiotherapy experienced no increase in relative survival. The most dramatic relative survival improvements occurred in patients who received radiation and patients receiving partial mastectomies, and such improvements were seen even after controlling for changes in tumor size over time. Non-breast-cancer relative survival among breast carcinoma patients has improved significantly since 1973; breast cancer patients are currently no more likely to die of other causes than the general population.

Improved web-based calculators for predicting breast carcinoma outcomes.

We describe a set of web-based calculators, available at http://www.CancerMath.net , which estimate the risk of breast carcinoma death, the reduction in life expectancy, and the impact of various adjuvant treatment choices. The published SNAP method of the binary biological model of cancer metastasis uses information on tumor size, nodal status, and other prognostic factors to accurately estimate of breast cancer lethality at 15 years after diagnosis. By combining these 15-year lethality estimates with data on the breast cancer hazard function, breast cancer lethality can be estimated at each of the 15 years after diagnosis. A web-based calculator was then created to visualize the estimated lethality with and without a range of adjuvant therapy options at any of the 15 years after diagnosis, and enable conditional survival calculations. NIH population data was used to estimate non-breast-cancer chance of death. The accuracy of the calculators was tested against two large breast carcinoma datasets: 7,907 patients seen at two academic hospitals and 362,491 patients from the SEER national dataset. The calculators were found to be highly accurate and specific, as seen by their capacity for stratifying patients into groups differing by as little as a 2% risk of death, and accurately accounting for nodal status, histology, grade, age, and hormone receptor status. Our breast carcinoma calculators provide accurate and useful estimates of the risk of death, which can aid in analysis of the various adjuvant therapy options available to each patient.

N0/N1, PNL, or LNR? The effect of lymph node number on accurate survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the prognostic accuracy of LN variables (N0/N1), numbers of positive lymph nodes (PLN), and lymph node ratio (LNR) in the context of the total number of examined lymph nodes (ELN). METHODS: Patients from SEER and a single institution (MGH) were reviewed and survival analyses performed in subgroups based on numbers of ELN to calculate excess risk of death (hazard ratio, HR). RESULTS: In SEER and MGH, higher numbers of ELN improved the overall survival for N0 patients. The prognostic significance (N0/N1) and PLN were too variable as the importance of a single PLN depended on the total number of LN dissected. LNR consistently correlated with survival once a certain number of lymph nodes were dissected (≥13 in SEER and ≥17 in the MGH dataset). CONCLUSIONS: Better survival for N0 patients with increasing ELN likely represents improved staging. PLN have some predictive value but the ELN strongly influence their impact on survival, suggesting the need for a ratio-based classification. LNR strongly correlates with outcome provided that a certain number of lymph nodes is evaluated, suggesting that the prognostic accuracy of any LN variable depends on the total number of ELN.