Epidemiology

Delayed breast cancer diagnosis after repeated recall at biennial screening mammography: an observational follow-up study from the Netherlands

Abstract

Background

Delay in detection of breast cancer may worsen tumour characteristics, with progression of tumour size and a higher risk of metastatic lymph nodes. The purpose of this study was to investigate delayed breast cancer diagnosis after repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality at screening.

Methods

This was a retrospective study performed in two cohorts of women enrolled in a mammography screening programme in the Netherlands. All women aged 50−75 who underwent biennial screening mammography either between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2006 (cohort 1) or between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 (cohort 2) were included.

Results

The cohorts showed no difference in proportions of women with delayed breast cancer diagnosis of at least 2 years (2.2% versus 2.8%, P = 0.29). Most delays were caused by incorrect BI-RADS classifications after recall (74.2%). An increase in mean tumour size was seen when comparing sizes at initial false-negative recall and at diagnosis of breast cancer (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The proportion of women with a long delay in breast cancer confirmation following repeated recall at screening mammography has not decreased during 20 years of screening. These delays lead to larger tumour size at detection and may negatively influence prognosis.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Patient example, repeated recall after previous false-negative recall.

References

  1. 1.

    Sankatsing, V. D. V., van Ravesteyn, N. T., Heijnsdijk, E. A. M., Looman, C. W. N., van Luijt, P. A., Fracheboud, J. et al. The effect of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities on breast cancer mortality: 20 years of follow-up. Int. J. Cancer 141, 671–677 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Otto, S. J., Fracheboud, J., Verbeek, A. L., Boer, R., Reijerink-Verheij, J. C., Otten, J. D. et al. Mammography screening and risk of breast cancer death: a population-based case−control study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 21, 66–73 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Duijm, L. E., Groenewoud, J. H., Jansen, F. H., Fracheboud, J., van Beek, M. & de Koning, H. J. Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Br. J. Cancer 91, 1795–1799 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Eriksson, L., Bergh, J., Humphreys, K., Warnberg, F., Tornberg, S. & Czene, K. Time from breast cancer diagnosis to therapeutic surgery and breast cancer prognosis: a population-based cohort study. Int. J. Cancer 143, 1093–1104 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Richards, M. A., Smith, P., Ramirez, A. J., Fentiman, I. S. & Rubens, R. D. The influence on survival of delay in the presentation and treatment of symptomatic breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 79, 858–864 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Duijm, L. E., Groenewoud, J. H., de Koning, H. J., Coebergh, J. W., van Beek, M., Hooijen, M. J. et al. Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 774–781 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Regev, G. S. & Ser, A. M. Breast cancer medical malpractice litigation in New York: the past 10 years. Breast 46, 1–3 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Smith, E. C., Ziogas, A. & Anton-Culver, H. Delay in surgical treatment and survival after breast cancer diagnosis in young women by race/ethnicity. JAMA Surg. 148, 516–523 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ciatto, S., Houssami, N., Ambrogetti, D., Bonardi, R., Collini, G. & Del Turco, M. R. Minority report—false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 105, 37–43 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    van Bommel, R. M. G., Weber, R., Voogd, A. C., Nederend, J., Louwman, M. W. J., Venderink, D. et al. Interval breast cancer characteristics before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography. BMC Cancer 17, 315 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Setz-Pels, W., Duijm, L. E., Groenewoud, J. H., Louwman, M. W., Jansen, F. H., van Beek, M. et al. Patient and tumor characteristics of bilateral breast cancer at screening mammography in the Netherlands, a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 129, 955–961 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Setz-Pels, W., Duijm, L. E., Groenewoud, J. H., Voogd, A. C., Jansen, F. H., Hooijen, M. J. et al. Detection of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Radiology 260, 357–363 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    American College of Radiology. BI-RADS Committee. ACR BI-RADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4th edn (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 2003).

  14. 14.

    American College of Radiology. BI-RADS Committee. ACR BI-RADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 5th edn (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 2013).

  15. 15.

    Sobin, L. H. & Wittekind, C. International Union Against Cancer. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 6th edn, xxiii, 239pp. (Wiley-Liss, New York, 2002).

  16. 16.

    Sobin, L. H., Gospodarowicz, M. K. & Wittekind, C. International Union Against Cancer. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours 7th edn, 310 pp. (Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex; Hoboken, NJ, 2010).

  17. 17.

    Nederend, J., Duijm, L. E., Louwman, M. W., Groenewoud, J. H., Donkers-van Rossum, A. B. & Voogd, A. C. Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann. Oncol. 23, 3098–3103 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bluekens, A. M., Holland, R., Karssemeijer, N., Broeders, M. J. & den Heeten, G. J. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265, 707–714 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Zahl, P. H., Gotzsche, P. C. & Maehlen, J. Natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening programme: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 12, 1118–1124 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Zahl, P. H., Maehlen, J. & Welch, H. G. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch. Intern. Med. 168, 2311–2316 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Harding, C., Pompei, F., Burmistrov, D. & Wilson, R. Use of mastectomy for overdiagnosed breast cancer in the United States: analysis of the SEER 9 Cancer Registries. J. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019, 5072506 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Marmot, M. G., Altman, D. G., Cameron, D. A., Dewar, J. A., Thompson, S. G. & Wilcox, M. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br. J. Cancer 108, 2205–2240 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Jorgensen, K. J. & Gotzsche, P. C. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. Bmj 339, b2587 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chiarelli, A. M., Muradali, D., Blackmore, K. M., Smith, C. R., Mirea, L., Majpruz, V. et al. Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs usual care. Br. J. Cancer 116, 1254–1263 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Park, H. L. & Hong, J. Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast cancer. Gland Surg. 3, 120–127 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Pijnappel, R. M., Peeters, P. H., Hendriks, J. H. & Mali, W. P. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br. J. Radiol. 77, 312–314 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Menezes, G. L. G., Pijnappel, R. M., Meeuwis, C., Bisschops, R., Veltman, J., Lavin, P. T. et al. Downgrading of breast masses suspicious for cancer by using optoacoustic breast imaging. Radiology 288, 355–365 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Olivotto, I. A., Gomi, A., Bancej, C., Brisson, J., Tonita, J., Kan, L. et al. Influence of delay to diagnosis on prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma. Cancer 94, 2143–2150 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Caplan, L. Delay in breast cancer: implications for stage at diagnosis and survival. Front. Public Health 2, 87 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Doubeni, C. A., Gabler, N. B., Wheeler, C. M., McCarthy, A. M., Castle, P. E., Halm, E. A. et al. Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: a systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium. CA: Cancer J. Clin. 68, 199–216 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Vaccarella, S., Franceschi, S., Engholm, G., Lonnberg, S., Khan, S. & Bray, F. 50 years of screening in the Nordic countries: quantifying the effects on cervical cancer incidence. Br. J. Cancer 111, 965–969 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vaccarella, S., Lortet-Tieulent, J., Plummer, M., Franceschi, S. & Bray, F. Worldwide trends in cervical cancer incidence: impact of screening against changes in disease risk factors. Eur. J. Cancer 49, 3262–3273 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Bronzwaer, M. E. S., Depla, A., van Lelyveld, N., Spanier, B. W. M., Oosterhout, Y. H., van Leerdam, M. E. et al. Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program. Gastrointest. Endosc. 89, 1–13 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working G., von Karsa, L., Patnick, J., Segnan, N., Atkin, W., Halloran, S. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 45, 51–59 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Arbyn, M., Anttila, A., Jordan, J., Ronco, G., Schenck, U., Segnan, N. et al. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Second edition—summary document. Ann. Oncol. 21, 448–458 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Simunovic, M., Rempel, E., Theriault, M. E., Coates, A., Whelan, T., Holowaty, E. et al. Influence of hospital characteristics on operative death and survival of patients after major cancer surgery in Ontario. Can. J. Surg. 49, 251–258 (2006).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hebert-Croteau, N., Brisson, J., Lemaire, J., Latreille, J. & Pineault, R. Investigating the correlation between hospital of primary treatment and the survival of women with breast cancer. Cancer 104, 1343–1348 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Brucker, S. Y., Schumacher, C., Sohn, C., Rezai, M., Bamberg, M., Wallwiener, D. et al. Benchmarking the quality of breast cancer care in a nationwide voluntary system: the first five-year results (2003-2007) from Germany as a proof of concept. BMC Cancer 8, 358 (2008).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chaudhry, R., Goel, V. & Sawka, C. Breast cancer survival by teaching status of the initial treating hospital. CMAJ 164, 183–188 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Williams, S. B., Ray-Zack, M. D., Hudgins, H. K., Oldenburg, J., Trinh, Q. D., Nguyen, P. L. et al. Impact of centralizing care for genitourinary malignancies to high-volume providers: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2, 265–273 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Markar, S. R., Mackenzie, H., Wiggins, T., Askari, A., Karthikesalingam, A., Faiz, O. et al. Influence of national centralization of oesophagogastric cancer on management and clinical outcome from emergency upper gastrointestinal conditions. Br. J. Surg. 105, 113–120 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Vonlanthen, R., Lodge, P., Barkun, J. S., Farges, O., Rogiers, X., Soreide, K. et al. Toward a consensus on centralization in surgery. Ann. Surg. 268, 712–724 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    van Putten, M., Nelen, S. D., Lemmens, V., Stoot, J., Hartgrink, H. H., Gisbertz, S. S. et al. Overall survival before and after centralization of gastric cancer surgery in the Netherlands. Br. J. Surg. 105, 1807–1815 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kalager, M., Haldorsen, T., Bretthauer, M., Hoff, G., Thoresen, S. O. & Adami, H. O. Improved breast cancer survival following introduction of an organized mammography screening program among both screened and unscreened women: a population-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 11, R44 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Blackmore, K. M., Weerasinghe, A., Holloway, C. M. B., Majpruz, V., Mirea, L., O’Malley, F. P. et al. Comparison of wait times across the breast cancer treatment pathway among screened women undergoing organized breast assessment versus usual care. Can. J. Public Health = Revue canadienne de sante publique 110, 595–605 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Smith, C. R., Chiarelli, A. M., Holloway, C. M., Mirea, L., O’Malley, F. P., Blackmore, K. M. et al. The impact of organized breast assessment on survival by stage for screened women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Breast 41, 25–33 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.R.C.L.: Performed data collection, data analyses, and wrote the manuscript. A.C.V.: Helped perform data analyses and edit the manuscript. R.M.P.: Helped write and edit the manuscript. W.S.-P.: Helped write and edit the manuscript. M.J.B.: Helped write and edit the manuscript and helped perform data analyses. V.C.G.T.-H.: Helped write and edit the manuscript. L.E.M.D: Designed the study, helped in writing the manuscript and also edited the manuscript. Also maintains database on screening outcome in the South of the Netherlands.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joost R. C. Lameijer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects the Netherlands (CCMO) is the National Competent Authority supervising the ethical review of trials performed within the Netherlands. They have confirmed that approval for this study was not necessary. The descriptive study has been set up complementary to a screening program for which the Dutch Health Care Minister has provided a permit. As the subjects included in the complementary trial did not undergo any additional burden, the Dutch Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not warrant ethical approval for the trial. This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All women except one (who was excluded) gave consent to participate in this study.

Data availability

Data are stored in a database maintained by one of the authors (L.E.M.D). The data are not publicly available. When data are needed, an official request can be made through the Department of Radiology of the Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital Nijmegen.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding information

This research is funded by The Dutch Health Care Insurance Board, which also finances and provides national coordination for the breast cancer screening program.

Additional information

Note This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lameijer, J.R.C., Voogd, A.C., Pijnappel, R.M. et al. Delayed breast cancer diagnosis after repeated recall at biennial screening mammography: an observational follow-up study from the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 123, 325–332 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0870-2

Download citation