PURPOSEAs new evidence is available, the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group has updated breast cancer surveillance recommendations for female survivors of ...

Updated Breast Cancer Surveillance Recommendations for Female Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer From the International Guideline Harmonization Group

The potential utility of abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) as a tool for breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Screening mammography was assessed in nine randomized trials initiated between the years 1963-1990, with breast cancer-specific mortality as the primary endpoint. In contrast, breast cancer detection has been the primary endpoint in most screening trials initiated during the past decade. These trials have evaluated digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound, and novel screening strategies have been recommended solely on the basis of improvements in breast cancer detection rates. Yet, the assumption that increases in tumor detection produce reductions in cancer mortality has not been validated, and tumor-detection endpoints may exacerbate the problem of over-diagnosis. Indeed, the detection of greater numbers of early-stage breast cancers in the absence of a subsequent decline in rates of metastatic cancers and cancer-related mortality is the hallmark of over-diagnosis. There is now evidence to suggest that both ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive cancers are over-diagnosed as a consequence of screening. For each patient who is over-diagnosed with breast cancer, the adverse consequences include unnecessary anxiety, financial hardships, and a small risk of morbidity and mortality from unnecessary treatments. Moreover, the over-treatment of breast cancer, as a consequence of over-diagnosis, is costly and contributes to waste in healthcare spending. In this article, we argue that there is a need to establish better endpoints in breast cancer screening trials, including quality of life and composite endpoints. Tumor-detection endpoints should be abandoned, as they may lead to the implementation of screening strategies that increase the risk of over-diagnosis.

Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpoints and Overdiagnosis.

Importance For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a knownBRCA1/2(BRCA1, OMIM113705; andBRCA2, OMIM114480) orTP53(OMIM151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce. Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a knownBRCA1/2orTP53variant. Design, Setting, and Participants In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a knownBRCA1/2orTP53variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied. Interventions Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography). Main Outcomes and Measures Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied. Results This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer. Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.

/pdf/cost-effectiveness-of-breast-cancer-screening-with-magnetic-4pqkaxd61c.pdf

Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening with Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk

Cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography vs. conventional mammography in screening patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer - A model-based economic evaluation

Background: Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk. Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30–55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661. Findings: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5–14] vs 17 mm [13–22]; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group). Interpretation: MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. Funding: Dutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting.

/pdf/mri-versus-mammography-for-breast-cancer-screening-in-women-j4mmkwbx09.pdf

Suzan van der Meij

Papers

MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial