Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer

Emily White, Diana L. Miglioretti, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Berta M. Geller, Robert D. Rosenberg, Karla Kerlikowske, Laura Saba, Pamela M. Vacek, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Diana S M Buist, Nina Oestreicher, William Barlow, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Stephen H. Taplin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

75 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Mammography screening may reduce breast cancer mortality by detecting cancers at an earlier stage. However, certain questions remain, including the ideal interval between mammograms. Methods: We conducted an observational study using information collected by seven mammography registries across the United States to investigate whether women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 2-year interval (n = 2440) are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (positive lymph nodes or metastases) than women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 1-year interval (n = 5400). Analyses were stratified by age and breast density to clarify whether groups that have the poorest mammography sensitivity (i.e., women under age 50 years and those with mammographically dense breasts) would benefit most from annual screening. The subjects were women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1996 and 2001 who were 40-89 years old at their index mammographic examination (i.e., the most recent screen at or before breast cancer diagnosis). Data were analyzed by logistic regression, adjusting for race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and mammography registry. Results: Among women age 40-49 years at the index mammogram, those with a 2-year screening interval were more likely to have late-stage disease at diagnosis than those with a 1-year screening interval (28% versus 21%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.81). There was no increase in late-stage disease for women 50 years or older with a 2-year versus a 1-year screening interval (women age 50-59 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.25; women age 60-69 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.35; women age 70 years or older at index mammogram: OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.19). There was no indication that women with dense breasts would benefit more from a 1-year versus 2-year screening interval than women with fatty breasts. Conclusion: These findings may be useful for policy decisions about appropriate screening intervals and for use in statistical models that estimate the costs and benefits of mammography by age and screening interval.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1832-1839
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume96
Issue number24
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 15 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mammography
Breast Neoplasms
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Breast
Registries
Statistical Models
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Observational Studies
Logistic Models
Lymph Nodes
Neoplasm Metastasis
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

White, E., Miglioretti, D. L., Yankaskas, B. C., Geller, B. M., Rosenberg, R. D., Kerlikowske, K., ... Taplin, S. H. (2004). Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96(24), 1832-1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh337

Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. / White, Emily; Miglioretti, Diana L.; Yankaskas, Bonnie C.; Geller, Berta M.; Rosenberg, Robert D.; Kerlikowske, Karla; Saba, Laura; Vacek, Pamela M.; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Buist, Diana S M; Oestreicher, Nina; Barlow, William; Ballard-Barbash, Rachel; Taplin, Stephen H.

In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 96, No. 24, 15.12.2004, p. 1832-1839.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

White, E, Miglioretti, DL, Yankaskas, BC, Geller, BM, Rosenberg, RD, Kerlikowske, K, Saba, L, Vacek, PM, Carney, PP, Buist, DSM, Oestreicher, N, Barlow, W, Ballard-Barbash, R & Taplin, SH 2004, 'Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer', Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 96, no. 24, pp. 1832-1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh337
White E, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Kerlikowske K et al. Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2004 Dec 15;96(24):1832-1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh337
White, Emily ; Miglioretti, Diana L. ; Yankaskas, Bonnie C. ; Geller, Berta M. ; Rosenberg, Robert D. ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Saba, Laura ; Vacek, Pamela M. ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Buist, Diana S M ; Oestreicher, Nina ; Barlow, William ; Ballard-Barbash, Rachel ; Taplin, Stephen H. / Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2004 ; Vol. 96, No. 24. pp. 1832-1839.
@article{98e7a04663064f13b78a6d8019451b53,
title = "Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer",
abstract = "Background: Mammography screening may reduce breast cancer mortality by detecting cancers at an earlier stage. However, certain questions remain, including the ideal interval between mammograms. Methods: We conducted an observational study using information collected by seven mammography registries across the United States to investigate whether women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 2-year interval (n = 2440) are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (positive lymph nodes or metastases) than women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 1-year interval (n = 5400). Analyses were stratified by age and breast density to clarify whether groups that have the poorest mammography sensitivity (i.e., women under age 50 years and those with mammographically dense breasts) would benefit most from annual screening. The subjects were women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1996 and 2001 who were 40-89 years old at their index mammographic examination (i.e., the most recent screen at or before breast cancer diagnosis). Data were analyzed by logistic regression, adjusting for race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and mammography registry. Results: Among women age 40-49 years at the index mammogram, those with a 2-year screening interval were more likely to have late-stage disease at diagnosis than those with a 1-year screening interval (28{\%} versus 21{\%}; odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.81). There was no increase in late-stage disease for women 50 years or older with a 2-year versus a 1-year screening interval (women age 50-59 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.97, 95{\%} CI = 0.75 to 1.25; women age 60-69 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.99, 95{\%} CI = 0.72 to 1.35; women age 70 years or older at index mammogram: OR = 0.88, 95{\%} CI = 0.64 to 1.19). There was no indication that women with dense breasts would benefit more from a 1-year versus 2-year screening interval than women with fatty breasts. Conclusion: These findings may be useful for policy decisions about appropriate screening intervals and for use in statistical models that estimate the costs and benefits of mammography by age and screening interval.",
author = "Emily White and Miglioretti, {Diana L.} and Yankaskas, {Bonnie C.} and Geller, {Berta M.} and Rosenberg, {Robert D.} and Karla Kerlikowske and Laura Saba and Vacek, {Pamela M.} and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Buist, {Diana S M} and Nina Oestreicher and William Barlow and Rachel Ballard-Barbash and Taplin, {Stephen H.}",
year = "2004",
month = "12",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1093/jnci/djh337",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "96",
pages = "1832--1839",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "24",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer

AU - White, Emily

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L.

AU - Yankaskas, Bonnie C.

AU - Geller, Berta M.

AU - Rosenberg, Robert D.

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Saba, Laura

AU - Vacek, Pamela M.

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Buist, Diana S M

AU - Oestreicher, Nina

AU - Barlow, William

AU - Ballard-Barbash, Rachel

AU - Taplin, Stephen H.

PY - 2004/12/15

Y1 - 2004/12/15

N2 - Background: Mammography screening may reduce breast cancer mortality by detecting cancers at an earlier stage. However, certain questions remain, including the ideal interval between mammograms. Methods: We conducted an observational study using information collected by seven mammography registries across the United States to investigate whether women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 2-year interval (n = 2440) are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (positive lymph nodes or metastases) than women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 1-year interval (n = 5400). Analyses were stratified by age and breast density to clarify whether groups that have the poorest mammography sensitivity (i.e., women under age 50 years and those with mammographically dense breasts) would benefit most from annual screening. The subjects were women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1996 and 2001 who were 40-89 years old at their index mammographic examination (i.e., the most recent screen at or before breast cancer diagnosis). Data were analyzed by logistic regression, adjusting for race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and mammography registry. Results: Among women age 40-49 years at the index mammogram, those with a 2-year screening interval were more likely to have late-stage disease at diagnosis than those with a 1-year screening interval (28% versus 21%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.81). There was no increase in late-stage disease for women 50 years or older with a 2-year versus a 1-year screening interval (women age 50-59 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.25; women age 60-69 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.35; women age 70 years or older at index mammogram: OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.19). There was no indication that women with dense breasts would benefit more from a 1-year versus 2-year screening interval than women with fatty breasts. Conclusion: These findings may be useful for policy decisions about appropriate screening intervals and for use in statistical models that estimate the costs and benefits of mammography by age and screening interval.

AB - Background: Mammography screening may reduce breast cancer mortality by detecting cancers at an earlier stage. However, certain questions remain, including the ideal interval between mammograms. Methods: We conducted an observational study using information collected by seven mammography registries across the United States to investigate whether women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 2-year interval (n = 2440) are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (positive lymph nodes or metastases) than women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 1-year interval (n = 5400). Analyses were stratified by age and breast density to clarify whether groups that have the poorest mammography sensitivity (i.e., women under age 50 years and those with mammographically dense breasts) would benefit most from annual screening. The subjects were women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1996 and 2001 who were 40-89 years old at their index mammographic examination (i.e., the most recent screen at or before breast cancer diagnosis). Data were analyzed by logistic regression, adjusting for race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and mammography registry. Results: Among women age 40-49 years at the index mammogram, those with a 2-year screening interval were more likely to have late-stage disease at diagnosis than those with a 1-year screening interval (28% versus 21%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.81). There was no increase in late-stage disease for women 50 years or older with a 2-year versus a 1-year screening interval (women age 50-59 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.25; women age 60-69 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.35; women age 70 years or older at index mammogram: OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.19). There was no indication that women with dense breasts would benefit more from a 1-year versus 2-year screening interval than women with fatty breasts. Conclusion: These findings may be useful for policy decisions about appropriate screening intervals and for use in statistical models that estimate the costs and benefits of mammography by age and screening interval.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=19944428726&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=19944428726&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jnci/djh337

DO - 10.1093/jnci/djh337

M3 - Article

C2 - 15601639

AN - SCOPUS:19944428726

VL - 96

SP - 1832

EP - 1839

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 24

ER -