Aimee M. Near

Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk.

BACKGROUND Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States. OBJECTIVE To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years. DESIGN Comparative modeling study. DATA SOURCES Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature. TARGET POPULATION A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. TIME HORIZON Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE Societal. INTERVENTION Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial). OUTCOME MEASURES BENEFITS life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, false-positive findings/deaths averted. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions. LIMITATION Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance. CONCLUSION Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Cancer Institute.

Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Context Multiple alternative mammography screening strategies exist. Contribution This modeling study estimated outcomes of 8 strategies that differed by starting age and interval. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths; in contrast, annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 40 years for high-risk women had similar outcomes as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years of age. Caution Imaging technologies other than mammography and nonadherence were not modeled. Implication Biennial mammography screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk women. Despite decades of mammography screening for early detection of breast cancer, there is no consensus on optimal strategies, target populations, or the magnitude of harms and benefits (111). The 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended biennial film mammography from age 50 to 74 years and suggested shared decision making about screening for women in their 40s (12). Since that recommendation was formulated, new data on the benefits of screening have emerged (2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14), digital mammography has essentially replaced plain film (15), and increasingly effective systemic treatment regimens for breast cancer have become standard (16). There has also been growing interest in consumer preferences and personalized screening approaches (1720). These factors could each affect the outcomes of breast cancer screening programs or alter policy decisions about population screening strategies (17). Modeling can inform screening policy decisions because it uses the best available evidence to evaluate a wide range of strategies while holding selected conditions (such as treatment effects) constant, facilitating strategy comparisons (21, 22). Modeling also provides a quantitative summary of outcomes in different groups and assesses how preferences affect results. Collaboration of several models provides a range of plausible effects and illustrates the effects of differences in model assumptions on results (1, 7, 23). We used 6 well-established simulation models to synthesize current data and examine the outcomes of digital mammography screening at various starting ages and intervals among average-risk women. We also examined how breast density, risk, or comorbidity levels affect results and whether preferences for health states related to screening and its downstream consequences affected conclusions. Methods Strategies We evaluated 8 strategies that varied by starting age (40, 45, or 50 years) and interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]); all strategies stop screening at age 74 years. We included no screening as a baseline. Model Descriptions The models used to evaluate the screening strategies were developed within the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) (2430), and the research was institutional review boardapproved. They were named model D (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts), model E (Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands), model GE (Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York), model M (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas), model S (Stanford University, Stanford, California), and model W (University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts). The Appendix provides information on model validation. Since earlier analyses (1), the models have undergone substantial revision to reflect advances in breast cancer control, including portrayal of molecular subtypes based on estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor-2 receptor (HER2) status (23); current population incidence (31) and competing nonbreast cancer mortality; digital screening; and the most current therapies (32). All models except model S include ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The general modeling approach is summarized in this article; full details, including approach, construction, data sources, assumptions, and implementation, are available at https://resources.cisnet.cancer.gov/registry and reference 33. Additional information is available on request, and the models are available for use via collaboration. The models begin with estimates of breast cancer incidence (31) and ER/HER2-specific survival trends without screening or adjuvant treatment, and then overlay data on screening and molecular subtypespecific adjuvant treatment to generate observed incidence and breast cancerspecific mortality trends in the U.S. population (1, 7, 17, 23, 33, 34). Breast cancer has a distribution of preclinical screen-detectable periods (sojourn time) and clinical detection points. Performance characteristics of digital mammography depend on age, first versus subsequent screen, time since last mammogram, and breast density. ER/HER2 status is assigned at diagnosis on the basis of stage and age. Molecular subtype and stage-specific treatment reduces the hazard of breast cancer death (models D, GE, M, and S) or results in a cure for some cases (models E and W). Women can die of breast cancer or other causes. Screen detection of cancer during the preclinical screen-detectable period can result in the identification and treatment of earlier-stage or smaller tumors than might occur via clinical detection, with a corresponding reduction in breast cancer mortality. We used a cohort of women born in 1970 with average-risk and average breast density and followed them from age 25 years (because breast cancer is rare before this age [0.08% of cases]) until death or age 100 years. Model Input Parameters The models used a common set of age-specific variables for breast cancer incidence, performance of digital mammography, treatment effects, and average and comorbidity-specific nonbreast cancer causes of death (20, 35). The parameter values are available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/modeling-report-collaborative-modeling-of-us-breast-cancer-1/breast-cancer-screening1 (33). In addition, each group included model-specific inputs (or intermediate outputs) to represent preclinical detectable times, lead time, and age- and ER/HER2-specific stage distribution in screen- versus nonscreen-detected women on the basis of their specific model structure (1, 7, 2330). These model-specific parameters were based on assumptions about combinations of values that reproduced U.S. trends in incidence and breast cancerspecific mortality, including proportions of DCIS that were nonprogressive and would not be detected without screening. Models M and W also assumed some small nonprogressive invasive cancers. The models adopted an ageperiodcohort modeling approach to project incidence rates of breast cancer in the absence of screening (31, 36); model M used 19751979 rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. The models assumed 100% adherence to screening and receipt of the most effective treatment to isolate the effect of varying screening strategies. Four models used age-specific sensitivity values for digital mammography that were observed in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) for detection of invasive and DCIS cancers combined (model S uses data for invasive cancers only). Separate values were used for initial and subsequent mammography by screening interval, using standard BCSC definitions: Annual includes data from screens occurring within 9 to 18 months of the prior screen, and biennial includes data on screens within 19 to 30 months (37, 38). Model D used these data as input variables (28), and models GE, S, and W used the data for calibration (24, 25, 27). Models E and M fit estimates from the BCSC and other data (26, 29). Women with ER-positive tumors received 5 years of hormone therapy and an anthracycline-based regimen accompanied by a taxane. Women with ER-negative invasive tumors received anthracycline-based regimens with a taxane. Those with HER2-positive tumors also received trastuzumab. Women with ER-positive DCIS received hormonal therapy (16). Treatment effectiveness was based on clinical trials and was modeled as a reduction in breast cancerspecific mortality risk or increase in the proportion cured compared with ER/HER2-specific survival in the absence of adjuvant treatment (32). Benefits Screening benefits (vs. no screening or incremental to other strategies) included percentage of reduction in breast cancer mortality, breast cancer deaths averted, and life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained because of averted or delayed breast cancer death. Benefits (and harms) were accumulated from age 40 to 100 years to capture the lifetime effect of screening. We considered preferences, or utilities, to account for morbidity from screening and treatment. A disutility for age- and sex-specific general population health was first applied to quality-adjust the life-years (39). These were further adjusted to account for additional decrements in life-years related to undergoing screening (0.006 for 1 week, or 1 hour), evaluating a positive screen (0.105 for 5 weeks, or 3.7 days), undergoing initial treatment by stage (for the first 2 years after diagnosis), and having distant disease (for the last year of life for all women who die of breast cancer) (Appendix Table 1) (33, 40, 41). Appendix Table 1. Utility Input Parameter Values Use and Harms Use of services focused on the number of mammograms required for the screening strategy. Harms included false-positive mammograms, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis. Rates of false-positive mammograms were calculated as mammograms read as abnormal or needing further work-up in women without cancer divided by the total number of screening

Race-Specific Impact of Natural History, Mammography Screening, and Adjuvant Treatment on Breast Cancer Mortality Rates in the United States

Background: U.S. Black women have higher breast cancer mortality rates than White women despite lower incidence. The aim of this study is to investigate how much of the mortality disparity can be attributed to racial differences in natural history, uptake of mammography screening, and use of adjuvant therapy. Methods: Two simulation models use common national race, and age-specific data for incidence, screening and treatment dissemination, stage distributions, survival, and competing mortality from 1975 to 2010. Treatment effectiveness and mammography sensitivity are assumed to be the same for both races. We sequentially substituted Black parameters into the White model to identify parameters that drive the higher mortality for Black women in the current time period. Results: Both models accurately reproduced observed breast cancer incidence, stage and tumor size distributions, and breast cancer mortality for White women. The higher mortality for Black women could be attributed to differences in natural history parameters (26–44%), use of adjuvant therapy (11–19%), and uptake of mammography screening (7–8%), leaving 38% to 46% unexplained. Conclusion: Black women appear to have benefited less from cancer control advances than White women, with a greater race-related gap in the use of adjuvant therapy than screening. However, a greater portion of the disparity in mortality appears to be due to differences in natural history and undetermined factors. Impact: Breast cancer mortality may be reduced substantially by ensuring that Black women receive equal adjuvant treatment and screening as White women. More research on racial variation in breast cancer biology and treatment utilization is needed. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(1); 112–22. ©2011 AACR.

Validating genetic risk associations for ovarian cancer through the international Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium

The search for genetic variants associated with ovarian cancer risk has focused on pathways including sex steroid hormones, DNA repair, and cell cycle control. The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) identified 10 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes in these pathways, which had been genotyped by Consortium members and a pooled analysis of these data was conducted. Three of the 10 SNPs showed evidence of an association with ovarian cancer at P⩽0.10 in a log-additive model: rs2740574 in CYP3A4 (P=0.011), rs1805386 in LIG4 (P=0.007), and rs3218536 in XRCC2 (P=0.095). Additional genotyping in other OCAC studies was undertaken and only the variant in CYP3A4, rs2740574, continued to show an association in the replication data among homozygous carriers: ORhomozygous(hom)=2.50 (95% CI 0.54-11.57, P=0.24) with 1406 cases and 2827 controls. Overall, in the combined data the odds ratio was 2.81 among carriers of two copies of the minor allele (95% CI 1.20–6.56, P=0.017, phet across studies=0.42) with 1969 cases and 3491 controls. There was no association among heterozygous carriers. CYP3A4 encodes a key enzyme in oestrogen metabolism and our finding between rs2740574 and risk of ovarian cancer suggests that this pathway may be involved in ovarian carcinogenesis. Additional follow-up is warranted.

Effects of Screening and Systemic Adjuvant Therapy on ER-Specific US Breast Cancer Mortality

BACKGROUND Molecular characterization of breast cancer allows subtype-directed interventions. Estrogen receptor (ER) is the longest-established molecular marker. METHODS We used six established population models with ER-specific input parameters on age-specific incidence, disease natural history, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects to quantify the impact of screening and adjuvant therapy on age-adjusted US breast cancer mortality by ER status from 1975 to 2000. Outcomes included stage-shifts and absolute and relative reductions in mortality; sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of varying screening frequency or accuracy. RESULTS In the year 2000, actual screening and adjuvant treatment reduced breast cancer mortality by a median of 17 per 100000 women (model range = 13-21) and 5 per 100000 women (model range = 3-6) for ER-positive and ER-negative cases, respectively, relative to no screening and no adjuvant treatment. For ER-positive cases, adjuvant treatment made a higher relative contribution to breast cancer mortality reduction than screening, whereas for ER-negative cases the relative contributions were similar for screening and adjuvant treatment. ER-negative cases were less likely to be screen-detected than ER-positive cases (35.1% vs 51.2%), but when screen-detected yielded a greater survival gain (five-year breast cancer survival = 35.6% vs 30.7%). Screening biennially would have captured a lower proportion of mortality reduction than annual screening for ER-negative vs ER-positive cases (model range = 80.2%-87.8% vs 85.7%-96.5%). CONCLUSION As advances in risk assessment facilitate identification of women with increased risk of ER-negative breast cancer, additional mortality reductions could be realized through more frequent targeted screening, provided these benefits are balanced against screening harms.

Which strategies reduce breast cancer mortality most? Collaborative modeling of optimal screening, treatment, and obesity prevention.

US breast cancer mortality is declining, but thousands of women still die each year.

Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 Years

Using a computer model, this study sought to determine the threshold breast cancer risk at which the balance of benefits and harms of starting mammography screening at age 40 years equals that of c...

Progesterone Receptor Gene Polymorphisms and Risk of Endometriosis: Results from an International Collaborative Effort

OBJECTIVE To investigate the association between self-reported endometriosis and the putative functional promoter +331C/T single nucleotide polymorphism and the PROGINS allele. DESIGN Control subjects from ovarian cancer case-control studies participating in the international Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. The majority of controls are drawn from population-based studies. SETTING An international ovarian cancer consortium including studies from Australia, Europe, and the United States. PATIENT(S) Five thousand eight hundred twelve white female controls, of whom 348 had endometriosis, from eight ovarian cancer case-control studies. INTERVENTION(S) None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Genotypes for the +331C/T single nucleotide polymorphism and PROGINS allele and a history of endometriosis. RESULT(S) The occurrence of endometriosis was reduced in women carrying one or more copies of the +331 T allele (odds ratio=0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.98), whereas there was no association between the PROGINS allele and endometriosis (odds ratio=0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.16). CONCLUSION(S) Additional studies of the +331C/T variant are warranted given the current finding and the equivocal results of previous studies. The +331 T allele has been shown to result in a reduced progesterone (P) receptor A to P receptor B ratio, and if the observed association with endometriosis is confirmed it would suggest that this ratio is important for this disease.

Common Model Inputs Used in CISNET Collaborative Breast Cancer Modeling

Background. Since their inception in 2000, the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) breast cancer models have collaborated to use a nationally representative core of common input parameters to represent key components of breast cancer control in each model. Employment of common inputs permits greater ability to compare model output than when each model begins with different input parameters. The use of common inputs also enhances inferences about the results, and provides a range of reasonable results based on variations in model structure, assumptions, and methods of use of the input values. The common input data are updated for each analysis to ensure that they reflect the most current practice and knowledge about breast cancer. The common core of parameters includes population rates of births and deaths; age- and cohort-specific temporal rates of breast cancer incidence in the absence of screening and treatment; effects of risk factors on incidence trends; dissemination of plain film and digital mammography; screening test performance characteristics; stage or size distribution of screen-, interval-, and clinically- detected tumors by age; the joint distribution of ER/HER2 by age and stage; survival in the absence of screening and treatment by stage and molecular subtype; age-, stage-, and molecular subtype-specific therapy; dissemination and effectiveness of therapies over time; and competing non-breast cancer mortality. Method and Results. In this paper, we summarize the methods and results for the common input values presently used in the CISNET breast cancer models, note assumptions made because of unobservable phenomena and/or unavailable data, and highlight plans for the development of future parameters. Conclusion. These data are intended to enhance the transparency of the breast CISNET models.

Comprehensive Evaluation of ESR2 Variation and Ovarian Cancer Risk

Studies indicate that estrogen receptor β, encoded by the ESR2 gene on chromosome 14q, may play a role in ovarian carcinogenesis. Using the genetic structure data generated by the Breast and Prostate Cohort Consortium (BPC3), we have comprehensively characterized the role of haplotype diversity in ESR2 and risk of ovarian cancer. Five haplotypes with a frequency of ≥5% were observed in White subjects and five haplotype tagging SNPs (htSNP) were selected to capture the locus diversity with a minimum Rh2 of 0.81. The htSNPs were genotyped in 574 White controls, 417 White invasive ovarian cancer cases, and 123 White borderline ovarian cancer cases from case-control studies carried out in Los Angeles County from 1994 through 2004. No statistically significant association was observed between the five htSNPs and related haplotypes and risk of ovarian cancer overall. Haplotype D was associated with a nonstatistically significant increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer overall (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-2.02; P = 0.11) relative to the most common haplotype and a statistically significant increased risk of invasive clear cell ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 3.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-11.73; P = 0.016). Haplotype D was also reported by the BPC3 to be associated with increased risk of breast cancer. This haplotype warrants further investigation to rule out any effect with invasive ovarian cancer risk. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(2):393–6)