Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, ISSN 1918-3003 print, 1918-3011 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Clin Med Res and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website https://jocmr.elmerjournals.com

Original Article

Volume 16, Number 12, December 2024, pages 608-624


A Retrospective Chart Analysis Comparing Breast Cancer Detection Rates Between Annual Versus Biennial Mammograms

Figures

↓  Figure 1. Screening frequency according to age.
Figure 1.
↓  Figure 2. Age by biennial or less-frequent-than-biennial screening. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 2.
↓  Figure 3. BI-RADS and screening frequency adjusted residuals (P < 0.050). BI-RADS: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Figure 3.
↓  Figure 4. ER status, PR status and screening frequency adjusted residuals (P < 0.050). ER: estrogen receptor; PR: progesterone receptor.
Figure 4.
↓  Figure 5. Node involvement and screening frequency adjusted residuals (P < 0.050).
Figure 5.

Tables

↓  Table 1. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Categorization
 
BI-RADS category Description
BI-RADS: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
0 Additional views or sonography required
1 No abnormalities identified
2 Not entirely normal, but definitely benign
3 Probably benign
4A Low suspicious for malignancy, but intervention required
4B Intermediate suspicion for malignancy, intervention required
4C Moderate suspicion, but not classic for carcinoma
5 Almost certainly malignant
6 Biopsy-proven carcinoma

 

↓  Table 2. TNM Staging
 
Tumor Lymph node Metastasis Grade ER PR Stage
Grade: tumor grade (1 = low, 2 = intermediate, 3 = high). ER: estrogen receptor; PR: progesterone receptor; TNM stage: tumor, node, metastasis stage.
T1 N0 M0 1 Positive Positive IA
T1 N0 M0 1 Positive Negative IB
T1 N0 M0 1 Negative Negative IIA
T1 N0 M0 2 Positive Positive IIA
T1 N0 M0 2 Positive Negative IIB
T1 N0 M0 2 Negative Negative IIIA
T2 N0 M0 1 Positive Positive IIA
T2 N0 M0 1 Positive Negative IIB
T2 N0 M0 1 Negative Negative IIIA
T2 N0 M0 2 Positive Positive IIIA
T2 N0 M0 2 Positive Negative IIIB
T2 N0 M0 2 Negative Negative IIIC
T3 N0 M0 1 Positive Positive IIIA
T3 N0 M0 1 Positive Negative IIIB
T3 N0 M0 1 Negative Negative IIIC
T4 N0 M0 1 Any Any IIIC
T1 N1 M0 1 Any Any IIB
T1 N1 M0 2 Any Any IIIA
T2 N1 M0 1 Any Any IIIA
T2 N1 M0 2 Any Any IIIB
T3 N1 M0 1 Any Any IIIB
T3 N1 M0 2 Any Any IIIC
Any T N2 M0 Any Any Any IIIC
Any T N3 M0 Any Any Any IV
Any T Any N M1 Any Any Any IV

 

↓  Table 3. Elaboration of Tumor Spread Based on TNM Staging
 
T Tumor size
TNM stage: tumor, node, metastasis stage; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ.
TX The primary tumor cannot be assessed.
T0 No evidence of primary tumor.
Tis Carcinoma in situ (DCIS, or Paget disease of the breast with no associated tumor mass)
T Tumor is 2 cm (3/4 of an inch) or less across.
T1mi Microinvasive carcinoma: tumor is 0.1 cm or less across.
T2 Tumor is more than 2 cm but not more than 5 cm (2 inches) across.
T3 Tumor is more than 5 cm across.
T4 Tumor of any size growing into the chest wall or skin.
N Node involvement
NX Nearby lymph nodes cannot be assessed.
N0 No spread to nearby lymph nodes.
N1 Cancer has spread to fewer than three lymph nodes located on the underarm or has spread to any number of lymph nodes located near the breastbone (internal mammary lymph nodes).
N2 Cancer has spread to four or more lymph nodes located on the underarm or has spread to lymph nodes located in the chest outside of the underarm.
N3 Cancer has spread to lymph nodes located in the neck.
M Metastasis
MX Distant spread cannot be assessed
M0 There is no evidence of distant metastases
M1 There is evidence of distant metastases.

 

↓  Table 4. Demographic Characteristics of 2,129 Women Diagnosed With Breast Carcinoma
 
Characteristic Annual (n = 1,728)a Biennial (n = 384)a Less frequent than biennial (n = 107)a
aMean (SD); n (%). SD: standard deviation.
Age (years) 60 (8) 59 (8) 59 (7)
Race
  White 1,497 (87%) 324 (84%) 98 (92%)
  Black or African American 111 (6.4%) 24 (6.3%) 3 (2.8%)
  Asian 17 (1.0%) 4 (1.0%) 1 (0.9%)
  Other 103 (6.0%) 32 (8.3%) 5 (4.7%)
Ethnicity
  Hispanic or Latina 98 (5.7%) 34 (8.9%) 5 (4.7%)
  Not Hispanic or Latina 1,630 (94%) 350 (91%) 102 (95%)

 

↓  Table 5. Screening Frequency and Resultant BI-RADS Classification of Carcinoma Breast Diagnosis in Women Undergoing Annual, Biennial, and Less-Frequent-Than-Biennial Screenings
 
BI-RADS Screening frequency Total
Annual Biennial Less frequent than biennial
χ2 = 72.2, df = 8, P < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.13. BI-RADS: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
No malignancy 741 (45.0%) 87 (23.3%) 29 (27.1%) 857 (40.3%)
Probably benign 196 (11.9%) 59 (15.8%) 19 (17.8%) 274 (12.9%)
Suspicion of malignancy 404 (24.5%) 138 (37.0%) 33 (30.8%) 575 (27.0%)
Almost certain malignant 259 (15.7%) 70 (18.8%) 23 (21.5%) 352 (16.5%)
Carcinoma 47 (2.9%) 19 (5.1%) 3 (2.8%) 69 (3.2%)
Total 1,647 (100.0%) 373 (100.0%) 107 (100.0%) 2,127 (100.0%)

 

↓  Table 6. ER Status in Women Who Were Diagnosed With Breast Carcinoma Undergoing Annual, Biennial, and Less-Frequent-Than-Biennial Screening
 
ER status Screening frequency Total
Annual Biennial Less frequent than biennial
χ2 = 16.2, df = 4, P = 0.003. Cramer’s V = 0.08. ER: estrogen receptor.
Not determined 350 (34.3%) 60 (24.8%) 10 (15.6%) 420 (31.7%)
Negative 99 (9.7%) 29 (12.0%) 9 (14.1%) 137 (10.3%)
Positive 572 (56.0%) 153 (63.2%) 45 (70.3%) 770 (58.0%)
Total 1,021 (100.0%) 242 (100.0%) 64 (100.0%) 1,327 (100.0%)

 

↓  Table 7. PR Status in Women With Undergoing Annual, Biennial, and Less-Frequent-Than-Biennial Breast Cancer Screening
 
PR status Screening frequency Total
Annual Biennial Less frequent than biennial
χ2 = 18.9, df = 2, P = 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.08. PR: progesterone receptor.
Not determined 358 (35.1%) 59 (24.4%) 10 (15.6%) 427 (32.2%)
Negative 174 (17.0%) 51 (21.1%) 15 (23.4%) 240 (18.1%)
Positive 489 (47.9%) 132 (54.5%) 39 (60.9%) 660 (49.7%)
Total 1,021 (100.0%) 242 (100.0%) 64 (100.0%) 1,327 (100.0%)

 

↓  Table 8. Nodal Involvement in Breast Cancer Screening Frequencies Occurring Annually, Biennially, and Less Frequent Than Biennially
 
Node involvement Screening frequency Total
Annual Biennial Less frequent than biennial
χ2 = 14.8, df = 8, Cramer’s V = 0.10.
N0 76 (7.4%) 25 (10.3%) 6 (9.4%) 107 (8.1%)
N1 715 (70.0%) 184 (76.0%) 44 (68.8%) 943 (71.1%)
N2 188 (18.4%) 25 (10.3%) 13 (20.3%) 226 (17.0%)
NX 11 (1.1%) 4 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 15 (1.1%)
Total 1,021 (100.0%) 242 (100.0%) 64 (100.0%) 1,327 (100.0%)

 

↓  Table 9. A Comparison Between Screening Guidelines From Various Societies in the USA
 
Organization Guidelines
American Cancer Society (ACS) [45] Annual screening between 45 and 55 years
Biennial screening > 55 years
US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) [46] Biennial screenings between 40 and 75 years
American Academy of Family Physicians [47] Biennial screening between 40 and 75 years
American College of Radiology (ACR) [48] Average risk: annual screening from 40 years beyond 75 years
National Comprehensive Cancer Network [49] Higher risk: annual, earlier screening with additional imaging