ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Controversy remains regarding the frequency of screening mammography. Women with different risks for developing breast cancer because of body mass index (BMI) may benefit from tailored recommendations.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the impact of mammography screening interval for women who are normal weight (BMI < 25), overweight (BMI 25–29.9), or obese (BMI ≥ 30), stratified by menopausal status.
DESIGN
Two cohorts selected from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Patient and mammography data were linked to pathology databases and tumor registries.
PARTICIPANTS
The cohort included 4,432 women aged 40–74 with breast cancer; the false-positive analysis included a cohort of 553,343 women aged 40–74 without breast cancer.
MAIN MEASURES
Stage, tumor size and lymph node status by BMI and screening interval (biennial vs. annual). Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy by BMI and screening interval. Analyses were stratified by menopausal status.
KEY RESULTS
Premenopausal obese women undergoing biennial screening had a non-significantly increased odds of a tumor size > 20 mm relative to annual screeners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.997 to 4.30). Across all BMI categories from normal to obese, postmenopausal women with breast cancer did not present with higher stage, larger tumor size or node positive tumors if they received biennial rather than annual screening. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendations were more common among annually screened women.
CONCLUSION
The only negative outcome identified for biennial vs. annual screening was a larger tumor size (> 20 mm) among obese premenopausal women. Since annual mammography does not improve stage at diagnosis compared to biennial screening and false-positive recall/biopsy rates are higher with annual screening, women and their primary care providers should weigh the harms and benefits when deciding on annual versus biennial screening.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727–37, W237–42.
Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1, CD001877.
Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1672–80.
Blamey RW. The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR randomized trial. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:1458–64.
Calonge N, Petitti D, DeWitt T, et al. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716–26, W-236.
Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:99–119.
ACOG. Annual Mammograms Now Recommended for Women Beginning at Age 402011: Available from: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2011/Annual_Mammograms_Now_Recommended_for_Women_Beginning_at_Age_40.
Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1089–96.
Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, et al. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481–92.
Hunt KA, Sickles EA. Effect of obesity on screening mammography: outcomes analysis of 88,346 consecutive examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1251–5.
Cui Y, Whiteman MK, Flaws JA, et al. Body mass and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis. Int J Cancer. 2002;98:279–83.
Porter GA, Inglis KM, Wood LA, et al. Effect of obesity on presentation of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:327–32.
Ahn J, Schatzkin A, Lacey JV Jr, et al. Adiposity, adult weight change, and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2091–102.
Daling JR, Malone KE, Doody DR, et al. Relation of body mass index to tumor markers and survival among young women with invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;92:720–9.
Macinnis RJ, English DR, Gertig DM, et al. Body size and composition and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:2117–25.
Feigelson HS, Patel AV, Teras LR, et al. Adult weight gain and histopathologic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Cancer. 2006;107:12–21.
Stark A, Stahl MS, Kirchner HL, et al. Body mass index at the time of diagnosis and the risk of advanced stages and poorly differentiated cancers of the breast: findings from a case-series study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010;34:1381–6.
Kerlikowske K, Walker R, Miglioretti DL, et al. Obesity, mammography use and accuracy, and advanced breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1724–33.
Renehan AG, Frystyk J, Flyvbjerg A. Obesity and cancer risk: the role of the insulin-IGF axis. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2006;17:328–36.
Gonullu G, Ersoy C, Ersoy A, et al. Relation between insulin resistance and serum concentrations of IL-6 and TNF-alpha in overweight or obese women with early stage breast cancer. Cytokine. 2005;31:264–9.
Garofalo C, Koda M, Cascio S, et al. Increased expression of leptin and the leptin receptor as a marker of breast cancer progression: possible role of obesity-related stimuli. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:1447–53.
Ostbye T, Taylor DH Jr, Yancy WS Jr, et al. Associations between obesity and receipt of screening mammography, Papanicolaou tests, and influenza vaccination: results from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) Study. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:1623–30.
Maruthur NM, Bolen S, Brancati FL, et al. Obesity and mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:665–77.
Nelson HD, Zakher B, Cantor A, Fu R, Grivvin J, O’Meara ES, Buist DSM, Kerlikowske K, van Ravesteyn NT, Trentham-Dietz A, Mandelblatt JS, Miglioretti DS. Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40–49 years: a systemic review and metaanalysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:635–48.
Elmore JG, Carney PA, Abraham LA, et al. The association between obesity and screening mammography accuracy. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1140–7.
Destounis S, Newell M, Pinsky R. Breast imaging and intervention in the overweight and obese patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:296–302.
Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001–8.
American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, Yankaskas BC, Rosenberg R, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Taplin SH, Urban N, Geller BM. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(20):1546–54.
White E, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1832–9.
Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A, Cronin KA. A sustained decline in postmenopausal hormone use: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2010. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(3):595–603.
NHLBI. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults—the evidence report. National Institutes of Health. Obes Res. 1998;6:51S–209.
American Joint Committee on Cancer. Manual for Staging of Cancer. 6th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 2002.
Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990;1(1):43–6.
Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Smith RA. Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010;19:429–49.
Allred DC. Ductal carcinoma in situ: terminology, classification, and natural history. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010:134–8.
Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, et al. Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15–25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy. Cancer. 1995;76:1197–2000.
Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, et al. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1692–702.
Kerlikowske K, Molinaro AM, Gauthier ML, et al. Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:627–37.
Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258:98–105.
Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, et al. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999–2008. JAMA. 2010;303:235–41.
Merrill RM, Richardson JS. Validity of self-reported height, weight, and body mass index: findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001–2006. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009;6:A121.
Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JWT, Rosenberg RD, Smith-Blindman R, Yankaskas BC. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;253(3):775–90.
Henry LR, Stojadinovic A, Swain SM, et al. The influence of a gene expression profile on breast cancer decisions. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:319–23.
Lo SS, Mumby PB, Norton J, et al. Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1671–6.
Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–20.
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Grand Opportunity Steering Committee.
Funders
This work was funded by a Grand Opportunity grant from the National Cancer Institute 1 RC2 CA148577 and a program project funded by the National Cancer Institute (PO1 CA154292). Data collection was supported by the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium co-operative agreement (U01CA63740, U01CA86076, U01CA86082, U01CA63736, U01CA70013, U01CA69976, U01CA63731, U01CA70040, HHSN261201100031C). False positive recall/ biopsy analysis was also supported by NCI grant R03CA150007. The collection of cancer and vital status data used in this study was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries throughout the U.S. For a full description of these sources, please see: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/work/acknowledgement.html. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health. We thank the participating women, mammography facilities, and radiologists for the data they have provided for this study. A list of the BCSC investigators and procedures for requesting BCSC data for research purposes are provided at: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/.
Conflict of Interest
Authors declare: no support from any organization other than NCI for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dittus, K., Geller, B., Weaver, D.L. et al. Impact of Mammography Screening Interval on Breast Cancer Diagnosis by Menopausal Status and BMI. J GEN INTERN MED 28, 1454–1462 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2507-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2507-0