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.

Tumour characteristics of bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers in women participating at biennial screening mammography.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral interval breast cancers show less favourable prognostic features than unilateral screen-detected cancers, but data on tumour characteristics of bilateral interval cancers in a systematically screened population are sparse. Therefore, we compared tumour characteristics of bilateral interval cancers with those of bilateral screen-detected cancers. METHODS: We included all 468,720 screening mammograms of women who underwent biennial screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands between January 2005 and January 2015. We collected breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all recalled women and of all women who presented with interval breast cancer. In women with synchronous bilateral breast cancer, the tumour with the highest tumour stage was defined as the index cancer. For comparison of data between both groups Fisher exact test and Chi-square test were used. RESULTS: Synchronous bilateral cancer was diagnosed in 2.2% of screen-detected cancers (64/2947) and in 3.2% of interval cancers (24/753) (P = 0.1). Index tumours of bilateral screen-detected cancers and interval cancers showed similar characteristics, except for a larger proportion of T-stage 2 or worse (T2+) cancers among interval cancers (16/24 (66.7%) versus 23/58 (39.7%) (P = 0.03). Index cancers, compared to contralateral cancers, were less frequently stage T1 in both bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers (35/64 (60.3%) versus 40/64 (88.9%) (P = 0.001) and 8/24 (33.3%) versus 18/24 (85.7%) (P < 0.001), respectively). In bilateral screen-detected cancers, contralateral cancers were more often stage 1a-c (P < 0.001) compared to index cancers. In bilateral index cancers, index cancers were more often of the lobular subtype (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Index cancers of bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers show significant differences in tumour size, whereas nodal status, receptor status and final surgical treatment are comparable. In bilateral screen-detected cancer, index cancers had a significantly higher tumour stage. In bilateral screen-detected cancer, index cancers were more often the ductal invasive subtype compared to contralateral cancers.

Frequency and characteristics of additionally detected ipsilateral breast lesions following recall at screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency and outcome of additionally detected ipsilateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included a consecutive series of 130,338 screening mammograms obtained between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016. During 2-year follow-up, clinical data were collected of all recalls. Women with a bilateral recall (115) and women recalled for multiple lesions in one breast (165) were excluded from the analyses. Screening outcome parameters were determined for recalled women with or without evaluation of additional ipsilateral breast abnormalities following recall. RESULTS: A total of 3995 women were recalled (recall rate, 3.1%). In 258 (6.4%) of these women, another lesion was detected in the ipsilateral breast than the one for which she had been recalled. Biopsy was more frequently performed of additionally detected ipsilateral lesions than of recalled lesions (55.8% (144/258)) versus 39.7% (1375/3457), (p < 0.001)). The proportion of malignancy in recalled lesions and additionally detected lesions was comparable (21.5% (743/3457) versus 19.0% (49/258), p = 0.34). Of all 144 biopsies of additionally detected ipsilateral lesions, 9 revealed a synchronous tumour in addition to a malignant recalled lesion, and 33 biopsies revealed multicentric or multifocal tumours. In 5 women, the recalled lesion turned out to be benign, whereas the additional lesion in a different quadrant was malignant at biopsy. A total of 97 biopsies showed benign findings. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of women are analyzed for additional ipsilateral breast lesions following recall. These lesions are more frequently biopsied than recalled lesions, but have a comparable probability of being malignant. The majority of additionally detected cancerous lesions are part of multifocal or multicentric malignancies.

Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to determine trends in the incidence of advanced breast cancer at screening mammography and the potential of screening to reduce it. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 351,009 screening mammograms of 85,274 women aged 50-75 years, who underwent biennial screening at a Dutch breast screening region in the period 1997-2008. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening mammograms of all advanced screen detected and advanced interval cancers and determined whether the advanced cancer (tumor > 20 mm and/or lymph node positive tumor) had been visible at a previous screen. Interval cancers were breast cancers diagnosed in women after a negative screening examination (defined as no recommendation for referral) and before any subsequent screen. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared between women with advanced cancer and women with non-advanced cancer, including ductal carcinoma in situ. RESULTS: A total of 1,771 screen detected cancers and 669 interval cancers were diagnosed in 2,440 women. Rates of advanced cancer remained stable over the 12-year period; the incidence of advanced screen-detected cancers fluctuated between 1.5 - 1.9 per 1,000 screened women (mean 1.6 per 1,000) and of advanced interval cancers between 0.8 - 1.6 per 1,000 screened women (mean 1.2 per 1,000). Of the 570 advanced screen-detected cancers, 106 (18.6%) were detected at initial screening; 265 (46.5%) cancers detected at subsequent screening had been radiologically occult at the previous screening mammogram, 88 (15.4%) had shown a minimal sign, and 111 (19.5%) had been missed. Corresponding figures for advanced interval cancers were 50.9% (216/424), 24.3% (103/424) and 25.1% (105/424), respectively. At multivariate analysis, women with a ≥ 30 months interval between the latest two screens had an increased risk of screen-detected advanced breast cancer (OR 1.63, 95%CI: 1.07-2.48) and hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of advanced disease among interval cancers (OR 3.04, 95%CI: 1.22-7.53). CONCLUSION: We observed no decline in the risk of advanced breast cancer during 12 years of biennial screening mammography. The majority of these cancers could not have been prevented through earlier detection at screening.