Mammographic features of benign breast lesions and risk of subsequent breast cancer in women attending breast cancer screening.
Breast diseases
Breast neoplasms
Longitudinal studies
Mammography
Mass screening
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
01
02
2021
accepted:
02
06
2021
revised:
25
05
2021
pubmed:
23
6
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
22
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the mammographic features in women with benign breast disease (BBD) and the risk of subsequent breast cancer according to their mammographic findings. We analyzed data from a Spanish cohort of women screened from 1995 to 2015 and followed up until December 2017 (median follow-up, 5.9 years). We included 10,650 women who had both histologically confirmed BBD and mammographic findings. We evaluated proliferative and nonproliferative BBD subtypes, and their mammographic features: architectural distortion, asymmetries, calcifications, masses, and multiple findings. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for breast cancer were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. We plotted the adjusted cumulative incidence curves. Calcifications were more frequent in proliferative disease with atypia (43.9%) than without atypia (36.8%) or nonproliferative disease (22.2%; p value < 0.05). Masses were more frequent in nonproliferative lesions (59.1%) than in proliferative lesions without atypia (35.1%) or with atypia (30.0%; p value < 0.05). Multiple findings and architectural distortion were more likely in proliferative disease (16.1% and 4.7%) than in nonproliferative disease (12.8% and 1.9%). Subsequent breast cancer occurred in 268 (2.5%) women. Compared with women who had masses, the highest risk of subsequent breast cancer was found in those with architectural distortions (aHR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.16-4.22), followed by those with multiple findings (aHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.34-2.66), asymmetries (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.84-3.28), and calcifications (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.21-2.12). BBD subtypes showed distinct mammographic findings. The risk of subsequent breast cancer was high in those who have shown architectural distortion, multiple findings, asymmetries, and calcifications than in women with masses. • The presence of mammographic findings in women attending breast cancer screening helps clinicians to assess women with benign breast disease (BBD). • Calcifications were frequent in BBDs with atypia, which are the ones with a high breast cancer risk, while masses were common in low-risk BBDs. • The excess risk of subsequent breast cancer in women with BBD was higher in those who showed architectural distortion compared to those with masses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34156554
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08118-y
pii: 10.1007/s00330-021-08118-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
621-629Subventions
Organisme : Instituto de Salud Carlos III
ID : PI17/00047
Organisme : Instituto de Salud Carlos III
ID : RD12/0001/0015
Informations de copyright
© 2021. European Society of Radiology.
Références
Castells X, Domingo L, Corominas JM et al (2015) Breast cancer risk after diagnosis by screening mammography of nonproliferative or proliferative benign breast disease: a study from a population-based screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149:237–244
doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-3208-z
Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH et al (2005) Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:229–237
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa044383
Román M, Louro J, Posso M et al (2021) Breast density, benign breast disease, and risk of breast cancer over time. Eur Radiol doi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07490-5
Canelo-Aybar C, Ferreira DS, Ballesteros M et al (2021) Benefits and harms of breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC). J Med Screen doi. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141321993866
Dyrstad SW, Yan Y, Fowler AM, Colditz GA (2015) Breast cancer risk associated with benign breast disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149:569–575
doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-3254-6
Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K (2015) Atypical hyperplasia of the breast--risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med 372:78–89
doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1407164
Castells X, Torá-Rocamora I, Posso M et al (2016) Risk of breast cancer in women with false-positive results according to mammographic features. Radiology 280:379–386
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151174
Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles EA, Smith-Bindman R (2009) Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 250:648–657
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2503080541
Baré M, Torà N, Salas D et al (2015) Mammographic and clinical characteristics of different phenotypes of screen-detected and interval breast cancers in a nationwide screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 154:403–415
doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3623-9
Chopier J, Roedlich MN, Mathelin C (2015) Breast imaging of mass, architectural distortion and asymmetry: clinical practice guidelines. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 44:947–959
doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2015.09.056
Whelehan P, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Vinnicombe SJ et al (2017) Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 72(1):95.e9–95.e15
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.08.011
Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Hacker A, Jansch A et al (2018) Use of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound vs. additional views and ultrasound for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities: German multi-reader study. Acta Radiol 59(7):782–788
doi: 10.1177/0284185117732600
Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol 26(12):4371–4379
doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4336-0
European Commission. European guidelines on breast cancer screening and diagnosis [Internet]. Brussels: European Commission; 2021. Available at: https://healthcare-quality.jrc.ec.europa.eu/european-breast-cancer-guidelines/diagnosis . [Access April 2021].
American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system. 2013.
Dupont WD, Page DL (1985) Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 312:146–151
doi: 10.1056/NEJM198501173120303
Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J R Statist Soc B 34:187–220
Dibble E, Laurenco A, Baird G, Ward R, Maynard A, Mainiero M (2018) Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion. Eur Radiol 28:3–10
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4968-8
Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV (2015) Architectural distortion on mammography: correlation with pathologic outcomes and predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1339–1345
doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14628
Thomas PS (2018) Diagnosis and management of high-risk breast lesions. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 16(11):1391–1396
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7099
Grimm LJ, Miller MM, Thomas SM et al (2019) Growth dynamics of mammographic calcifications: differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ from benign breast disease. Radiology 292:77–83
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182599
Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251(2):347–358
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2512081235
D'Orsi C (2010) Imaging for the diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010(41):214–217
doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq037
Greenwood H, Kelil T, Lobach I, Fong V, Price ER (2021) Post-lumpectomy breast calcifications: can original tumor features assist in determining need for biopsy? Clin Imaging 20(75):16–21
doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.01.012
Salamat F, Niakan B, Keshtkar A, Rafiei E, Zendehdel M (2018) Subtypes of benign breast disease as a risk factor of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Iran J Med Sci 43(4):355–364
Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218(2):497–502
doi: 10.1148/radiology.218.2.r01fe35497
Eriksson M, Czene K, Pawitan Y et al (2017) A clinical model for identifying the short-term risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 19(1):29
doi: 10.1186/s13058-017-0820-y
Louro J, Román M, Posso M et al (2021) Developing and validating an individualized breast cancer risk prediction model for women attending breast cancer screening. PLoS One; 23 16(3):e0248930
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248930
Peairs KS, Choi Y, Stewart RW, Sateia HF (2017) Screening for breast cancer. Semin Oncol 44(1):60–72
doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2017.02.004
Gaudet M, Deubler E, Diver WR et al (2021) Breast cancer risk factors by mode of detection among screened women in the Cancer Prevention Study-II. Breast Cancer Res Treat doi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-06025-2
Louro J, Posso M, Hilton Boon M et al (2019) A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models. Br J Cancer 121:76–85
doi: 10.1038/s41416-019-0476-8