Search

Background The incidence of distant-stage (metastatic) breast cancer at initial presentation has increased significantly in U.S. women under 40 years of age, but no clear trend in older women has been reported. Purpose To investigate trends in distant-stage breast cancer incidence using the latest available Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, including the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study of 71 million to 80 million women annually, SEER 22 stage-specific breast cancer incidence rates from January 2004 to December 2021 were analyzed using Joinpoint software to evaluate trends in distant-stage disease in U.S. women overall, by age group, and by race and ethnicity. Results Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates at presentation increased significantly for U.S. women overall, with an annual percentage change (APC) of 1.16% (95% CI: 0.92, 1.42; P < .001) over 2004-2021. Distant-stage disease increased consistently for women aged 20-39 years (APC, 2.91%; P < .001) and for women aged 75 years or older (APC, 1.44%; P < .001). For women aged 40-74 years, the distant-stage breast cancer incidence rate increased with an APC of 2.10% over 2004-2010 ( P = .002) and an APC of 2.73% over 2018-2021 ( P = 0.01). The interruption of care in 2020 due to COVID-19 affected distant-stage breast cancer detection, especially for older women from racial and ethnic minority groups. The incidence of distant-stage breast cancer increased over 2004-2021 for Asian women (APC, 2.90%; P < .001), Black women (0.86%; P = .008), and Hispanic women (1.56%; P < .001) and over 2004-2019 for Native American women (3.86%; P = .04). White women showed an increase over 2004-2012 (1.68%; P = .01) but no evidence of a trend over 2012-2021. Distant-stage cancer incidence rates were 55% higher in Black women than White women. Conclusion Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates at presentation have increased significantly in U.S. women overall; in age groups 20-39 years, 40-74 years, and 75 years or older; and in Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Native American women. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kim and Moy in this issue.

Overdiagnosis is the concept that some cancers detected at screening would never have become clinically apparent during a woman's lifetime in the absence of screening. This could occur if a woman dies of a cause other than breast cancer in the interval between mammographic detection and clinical detection (obligate overdiagnosis) or if a mammographically detected breast cancer fails to progress to clinical presentation. Overdiagnosis cannot be measured directly. Indirect methods of estimating overdiagnosis include use of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate breast cancer mortality, population-based screening studies, or modeling. In each case, estimates of overdiagnosis must consider lead time, breast cancer incidence trends in the absence of screening, and accurate and predictable rates of tumor progression. Failure to do so has led to widely varying estimates of overdiagnosis. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considers overdiagnosis a major harm of mammography screening. Their 2024 report estimated overdiagnosis using summary evaluations of 3 RCTs that did not provide screening to their control groups at the end of the screening period, along with Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network modeling. However, there are major flaws in their evidence sources and modeling estimates, limiting the USPSTF assessment. The most plausible estimates remain those based on observational studies that suggest overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is 10% or less and can be attributed primarily to obligate overdiagnosis and nonprogressive ductal carcinoma in situ., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The 2023 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer recommends lowering the starting age for biennial screening with mammography to age 40 years from 50 years, the age of screening initiation that the Task Force had previously recommended since 2009. A recent Perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Woloshin et al contends that this change will provide no additional benefit and is unjustified. This article reviews the main ideas presented by Woloshin et al and provides substantial evidence not considered by those authors in support of screening mammography in U.S. women starting at age 40 years., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2024. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background There is ongoing debate about recommendations for breast cancer screening strategies, specifically regarding the frequency of screening and the age at which to initiate screening. Purpose To compare estimates of breast cancer screening outcomes published by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to understand the benefits and risks of different screening scenarios. Materials and Methods Modeling estimates published by CISNET are based on hypothetical cohorts in the United States and compare women, starting at 40 years of age, who do and do not undergo breast cancer screening with mammography. The four scenarios assessed in this study, of multiple possible scenarios, were biennial screening ages 50-74 years (2009 and 2016 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] recommendations), biennial screening ages 40-74 years (2023 USPSTF draft recommendation), annual screening ages 40-74 years, and annual screening ages 40-79 years. For each scenario, CISNET estimates of median lifetime benefits were compared. Risks that included false-positive screening results per examination and benign biopsies per examination were also calculated and compared. Results Estimates from CISNET 2023 showed that annual screening ages 40-79 years improved breast cancer mortality reduction compared with biennial screening ages 50-74 years and biennial screening ages 40-74 years (41.7%, 25.4%, and 30%, respectively). Annual screening ages 40-79 years averted the most breast cancer deaths (11.5 per 1000) and gained the most life-years (230 per 1000) compared with other screening scenarios (range, 6.7-11.5 per 1000 and 121-230 per 1000, respectively). False-positive screening results per examination were less than 10% for all screening scenarios (range, 6.5%-9.6%) and lowest for annual screening ages 40-79 years (6.5%). Benign biopsies per examination were less than 1.33% for all screening scenarios (range, 0.88%-1.32%) and lowest for annual screening ages 40-79 years (0.88%). Conclusion CISNET 2023 modeling estimates indicate that annual breast cancer screening starting at 40 years of age provides the greatest benefit to women and the least risk per examination. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Joe in this issue.

Background: The US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Dutch-Belgian NELSON randomized controlled trials have shown significant mortality reductions from low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening (LCS). NLST, ITALUNG, and COSMOS trials have provided detailed dosimetry data for LCS., Methods: LCS trial mortality benefit results, organ dose and effective dose data, and Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Report VII (BEIR VII) organ dose-to-cancer-mortality risk data are used to estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios of the NLST, ITALUNG, and COSMOS trials. Data from those trials also are used to estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for longer-term LCS corresponding to scenarios recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force and the American Cancer Society., Results: Including only screening doses, NLST benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios are 12:1 for males, 19:1 for females, and 16:1 overall. Including both screening and estimated follow-up doses, benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for NLST are 9:1 for males, 13:1 for females, and 12:1 overall. For the ITALUNG trial, the benefit-to-radiation-risk ratio is 58-63:1. For the COSMOS trial, assuming sex-specific mortality benefits like those of the NELSON trial, the benefit-to-radiation-risk ratio is 23:1. Assuming a conservative 20% mortality benefit, annual screening in people 50-79 years old with a 20+ pack-year history of smoking has benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios of 23:1 (with follow-up doses adding 40% to screening doses) to 29:1 (with follow-up adding 10%) based on COSMOS dose data., Conclusions: Based on linear, no threshold BEIR VII dose-risk estimates, benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for LCS are highly favorable. Results emphasize the importance of using modern CT technologies, maintaining low diagnostic follow-up rates, and minimizing both screening and diagnostic follow-up doses., Plain Language Summary: The benefits of lung cancer screening significantly outweigh estimates of future harms associated with exposure to radiation during screening and diagnostic follow-up examinations. Our findings emphasize the importance of lung cancer screening practices using state-of-the-art computed tomography scanners and specialized low-dose lung screening and diagnostic follow-up techniques., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)