Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2019 Mar 7. pii: S0846-5371(18)30188-8. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2018.10.007. [Epub ahead of print]

Screening Sensitivity According to Breast Cancer Location.

Author information

1
Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Quebec City, Québec, Canada; Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: isabelle.theberge@inspq.qc.ca.
2
Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Quebec City, Québec, Canada.
3
Centre hospitalier affilié - Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, Quebec City, Québec, Canada.
4
Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
5
Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Quebec City, Québec, Canada; Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Québec, Canada; Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec, Axe Oncologie, Quebec City, Québec, Canada.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To examine the relation between breast cancer location and screening mammogram sensitivity, and assess whether this association is modified by body mass index (BMI) or breast density.

METHODS:

This study is based on all interval cancers (n = 481) and a random sample of screen-detected cancers (n = 481) diagnosed in Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program participants in 2007. Film-screening mammograms, diagnostic mammograms, and ultrasound reports (when available) were requested for these cases. The breast cancer was then localised in mediolateral oblique (MLO) and craniocaudal (CC) projections of the breast by 1 experienced radiologist. The association between cancer location and screening sensitivity was assessed by logistic regression. Adjusted sensitivity and sensitivity ratios were obtained by marginal standardisation.

RESULTS:

A total of 369 screen-detected and 268 interval cancers could be localised in MLO and/or CC projections. The 2-year sensitivity reached 68%. Overall, sensitivity was not statistically associated with location of the cancer. However, sensitivity seems lower in MLO posterior inferior area for women with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 compared to sensitivity in central area for women with lower BMI (adjusted sensitivity ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.98). Lower sensitivity was also observed in subareolar areas for women with breast density ≥ 50% compared to the central areas for women with lower breast density (for MLO and CC projections, adjusted sensitivity ratio and 95% CI of, respectively, 0.54 [0.13-0.96] and 0.46 [0.01-0.93]).

CONCLUSIONS:

Screening sensitivity seems lower in MLO posterior inferior area in women with higher BMI and in subareolar areas in women with higher breast density. When interpreting screening mammograms, radiologists need to pay special attention to these areas.

KEYWORDS:

Breast cancer; Mammography; Screening; Sensitivity

PMID:
30853307
DOI:
10.1016/j.carj.2018.10.007

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center