We determined the characteristics and prognosis of interval breast cancers (IC) at screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital (FFDM) screening mammography. The study population consisted of 417,746 consecutive screening mammograms (302,699 SFM screens and 115,047 FFDM screens), obtained between 2000 and 2011. During 2-year follow-up, we collected breast imaging reports, surgical reports, and pathology results. A total of 800 ICs had been diagnosed in the screened population, of which 288 detected in the first year (early ICs) and 512 in the second year (late ICs) after a negative screen. 31.3 % of early IC's and 19.1 % of late IC's, respectively, were visible in retrospect on the latest previous screens, but had been missed during screening (P < 0.001). Missed invasive ICs were larger (28.5 mm vs. 23.9 mm, P = 0.003) and showed a higher fraction of T3+cancers (16.9 vs. 8.5 %, P = 0.02) than true ICs (i.e., not visible at the latest screen). A higher portion of missed than true ICs underwent mastectomy (44.7 vs. 30.8 %, P = 0.002). We found no differences in mammographic and tumor characteristics for early ICs, detected either after SFM or FFDM. Late ICs following FFDM were more often true ICs than missed ICs (69.0 vs. 57.6 %, P = 0.03) and more often receptor triple negative (P = 0.02), compared to late ICs at SFM. Interval cancer subgroups showed comparable overall survival. Interval cancer subgroups show distinctive mammographic and tumor characteristics but a comparable overall survival.

BackgroundTo determine the proportion of “true” interval cancers and tumor characteristics of interval breast cancers prior to, during and after the transition from screen-film mammography screening (SFM) to full-field digital mammography screening (FFDM).MethodsWe included all women with interval cancers detected between January 2006 and January 2014. Breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports of all women recalled at screening mammography and of all women with interval breast cancers were collected. Two experienced screening radiologists reviewed the diagnostic mammograms, on which the interval cancers were diagnosed, as well as the prior screening mammograms and determined whether or not the interval cancer had been missed on the most recent screening mammogram. If not missed, the cancer was considered an occult (“true”) interval cancer.ResultsA total of 442 interval cancers had been diagnosed, of which 144 at SFM with a prior SFM (SFM-SFM), 159 at FFDM with a prior SFM (FFDM-SFM) and 139 at FFDM with a prior FFDM (FFDM-FFDM). The transition from SFM to FFDM screening resulted in the diagnosis of more occult (“true”) interval cancers at FFDM-SFM than at SFM-SFM (65.4% (104/159) versus 49.3% (71/144), P < 0.01), but this increase was no longer statistically significant in women who had been screened digitally for the second time (57.6% (80/139) at FFDM-FFDM versus 49.3% (71/144) at SFM-SFM). Tumor characteristics were comparable for the three interval cancer cohorts, except of a lower porportion (75.7 and 78.0% versus 67.2% af FFDM-FFDM, P < 0.05) of invasive ductal cancers at FFDM with prior FFDM.ConclusionsAn increase in the proportion of occult interval cancers is observed during the transition from SFM to FFDM screening mammography. However, this increase seems temporary and is no longer detectable after the second round of digital screening. Tumor characteristics and type of surgery are comparable for interval cancers detected prior to, during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM screening mammography, except of a lower proportion of invasive ductal cancers after the transition.

No abstract

Blinded and nonblinded double-reading yielded comparable surgical treatments for women with screen-detected or interval breast cancer except for larger total resection volumes at BCS for screen-detected DCIS and a higher BCS rate for interval cancers at nonblinded double-reading.