Skip to main content
Log in

Prognosis, treatment, and recurrence of breast cancer for women attending or not attending the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Breast cancer screening programs have been initiated in many countries in the past decade. To determine the impact of the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC), disease and treatment outcomes for women with breast cancer diagnosed in BC between 1989 and 1996 were compared on the basis of attendance at the SMPBC. An SMPBC attender was a women diagnosed with breast cancer within three years of an SMPBC screen, regardless whether the cancer was detected as a result of that screen. Of the 13,636 women aged 40–89 years diagnosed with breast cancer in BC during the study period, 2,647 (19.4%) were SMPBC attenders. 73.5% of SMPBC attenders (N=1,946) and 74.2% of non-attenders (N=8,149) were referred to the BC Cancer Agency and had pathology, staging, treatment, and outcome information available. SMPBC attenders compared with non-attenders were more likely to have in situ disease alone, and those with invasive cancers had smaller tumors which were less likely to have grade III histology and less likely to have spread to axillary lymph nodes (all P<0.001). SMPBC attenders were more likely to be treated with breast conservation and less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy or tamoxifen (P < 0.001). Log-rank tests showed local (P = 0.017), distant (P < 0.001), and overall (P < 0.001) disease-free survival were better for SMPBC attenders. These favorable surrogate endpoints suggest that the benefits of breast screening as demonstrated by randomized trials can be translated into community practice by an organized breast screening program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Larsson L-G, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, Tabar L, Nystrom L: Updated overview of the Swedish randomized trials on breast cancer screening with mammography: age group 40–49 at randomization. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 22: 57–61, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nyström L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M, Ryden S, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, Tabar L, Larsson LG: Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 341: 973–978, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kerlikowske K: Efficacy of screening mammography amongwomen aged 40 to 49 and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 22: 79–86, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, Smart CR: Benefit of screening mammography in women age 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 22: 87–92, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel: National Institutes of Health consensus development conference statement: breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49, January 21–23, 1997. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 1015–1026, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  6. Clay MG, Hislop TG, Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ: Screening mammography in British Columbia: 1988–1993. Am J Surg 167: 490–492, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hislop TG, Worth AJ, Kan L, Rousseau E: Post screendetected breast cancer within the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 42: 235–242, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  8. B.C. Stats.: Population estimates (1976, 1981, 1986, 1991–1997) and projections (1998–2026). B.C. Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

  9. Gaudette LA, Altmayer CA, Nobrega KMP, Lee J: Trends in mammography utilization, 1981 to 1994. Health Reports 8: 17–27, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  10. Olivotto IA, Kan L, Mates D, King S: Pattern of use and health system costs for bilateral mammography in British Columbia since initiating the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Can Med Assoc J 1998 (in press).

  11. Olivotto IA, Coldman AJ, Hislop TG, Trevisan CH, Kula J, Goel V, Sawka C: Compliance with practice guidelines for node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15: 216–222, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  12. Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: 1996–1997 annual report

  13. Sobin LH, Wittekind C (eds): TNM Classification of malignant tumours, UICC 5th edition. Wiley-Liss, New York, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  14. Feig SA: Methods to identify benefit from mammographic screening ofwomen aged 40–49 years. Radiology 201: 309–316, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O: Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 30: 187–210, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  16. Feig SA: Determination of mammographic screening intervals with surrogate measures for women aged 40–49 years. Radiology 193: 311–314, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sickles EA: Breast cancer screening outcomes in women ages 40–49: Clinical experience with service screening using modern mammography. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 22: 99–104, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  18. Norden T, Thurfell E, Hasselgren M, Lindgren A, Norgren A, Bergstrom R, Holmberg L: Mammographic screening for breast cancer. What cancers do we find? Eur J Cancer 33: 624–628, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hakama M, Pukkala E, Heikkila M, Kallio M: Effectiveness of the public health policy for breast cancer screening in Finland: population based cohort study. Br Med J 314: 864–867, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gaudette LA, Gao RN, Wysocki M, Nault F: Update on breast cancer mortality, 1995. Health Reports 9: 31–34, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chu KC, Tarone RE, Kessler LG, Ries LAG, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Edwards BK: Recent trends in U.S. breast cancer incidence, survival and mortality rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 88: 1571–1579, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  22. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group: Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic or immune therapy: 133 randomized trials involving 31,000 recurrences and 24,000 deaths among 75,000 women. Lancet 399: 1–15, 71–85, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  23. Olivotto IA, Bajdik C, Plenderleith IH, Coppin CML, Gelmon KA, Jackson SM, Ragaz J, Wilson KS, Worth A: Adjuvant systemic therapy and survival from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 332: 805–810, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson TP, Ford L, Warnecke RB, Nayfield SG, Kaluzny A, Cutter G, Gillings D, Sondik E, Ozer H: Effect of a National Cancer Institute clinical alert on breast cancer practice patterns. J Clin Oncol 12: 1783–1788, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  25. Narod SA: On being the right size: a reappraisal of mammography trials in Canada and Sweden. Lancet 349 (letter): 1846, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hislop TG, Olivotto IA, Coldman AJ, Trevisan CH, Kula J, McGregor GI, Phillips N: Variations in breast conservation surgery forwomen with axillary lymph node negative breast cancer in British Columbia. Can J Public Health 87: 390–394, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goel V, Olivotto I, Hislop TG, Sawka C, Coldman A, Holowaty EJ: Patterns of initial management of nodenegative breast cancer in two Canadian provinces. Can Med Assoc J 156: 25–35, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sawka C, Olivotto I, Coldman A, Goel V, Holowaty E, Hislop TG: The association between population-based treatment guidelines and adjuvant therapy for nodenegative breast cancer. Br J Cancer 75: 1534–1542, 1997

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olivotto, I.A., Mates, D., Kan, L. et al. Prognosis, treatment, and recurrence of breast cancer for women attending or not attending the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 54, 73–81 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006152918283

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006152918283

Navigation