Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb 1;6(2):e230166.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0166.

Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency

Affiliations

Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency

Brian L Sprague et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by mammography screening is a controversial outcome with potential benefits and harms. The association of mammography screening interval and woman's risk factors with the likelihood of DCIS detection after multiple screening rounds is poorly understood.

Objective: To develop a 6-year risk prediction model for screen-detected DCIS according to mammography screening interval and women's risk factors.

Design, setting, and participants: This Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cohort study assessed women aged 40 to 74 years undergoing mammography screening (digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis) from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2020, at breast imaging facilities within 6 geographically diverse registries of the consortium. Data were analyzed between February and June 2022.

Exposures: Screening interval (annual, biennial, or triennial), age, menopausal status, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, benign breast biopsy history, breast density, body mass index, age at first birth, and false-positive mammography history.

Main outcomes and measures: Screen-detected DCIS defined as a DCIS diagnosis within 12 months after a positive screening mammography result, with no concurrent invasive disease.

Results: A total of 916 931 women (median [IQR] age at baseline, 54 [46-62] years; 12% Asian, 9% Black, 5% Hispanic/Latina, 69% White, 2% other or multiple races, and 4% missing) met the eligibility criteria, with 3757 screen-detected DCIS diagnoses. Screening round-specific risk estimates from multivariable logistic regression were well calibrated (expected-observed ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) with a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.639 (95% CI, 0.630-0.648). Cumulative 6-year risk of screen-detected DCIS estimated from screening round-specific risk estimates, accounting for competing risks of death and invasive cancer, varied widely by all included risk factors. Cumulative 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk increased with age and shorter screening interval. Among women aged 40 to 49 years, the mean 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk was 0.30% (IQR, 0.21%-0.37%) for annual screening, 0.21% (IQR, 0.14%-0.26%) for biennial screening, and 0.17% (IQR, 0.12%-0.22%) for triennial screening. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the mean cumulative risks were 0.58% (IQR, 0.41%-0.69%) after 6 annual screens, 0.40% (IQR, 0.28%-0.48%) for 3 biennial screens, and 0.33% (IQR, 0.23%-0.39%) after 2 triennial screens.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk was higher with annual screening compared with biennial or triennial screening intervals. Estimates from the prediction model, along with risk estimates of other screening benefits and harms, could help inform policy makers' discussions of screening strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Gard reported receiving personal fees from Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute for provision of statistical consulting services to the statistical coordinating center of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Dr Hubbard reported receiving grants from Pfizer, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Mean Predicted Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Age and Screening Interval
Within each age group, predictions were standardized to a common population for comparing predicted risks with different screening intervals. Weights of the study population were adjusted to reflect the US female population based on age, race and ethnicity, and first-degree family history of breast cancer. Error bars represent the IQRs.

References

    1. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(15):1685-1692. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1498 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening . The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778-1786. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL, et al. National Performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 2017;283(1):49-58. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016161174 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mannu GS, Wang Z, Broggio J, et al. Invasive breast cancer and breast cancer mortality after ductal carcinoma in situ in women attending for breast screening in England, 1988-2014: population based observational cohort study. BMJ. 2020;369:m1570. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1570 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D, et al. Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(1):109-114. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00446-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types