Abstract GS03-02: Mammographic surveillance in early breast cancer patients aged 50 years or over: results of the Mammo-50 non-inferiority trial of annual versus less frequent mammography

IF 2.9 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ACS Chemical Health & Safety Pub Date : 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-gs03-02
Janet Dunn, Peter Donnelly, Nada I. Elbeltagi, Andrea Marshall, Alastair Thompson, Riccardo Audisio, Sarah Pinder, David Cameron, Amy Campbell, Sue Hartup, Lesley Turner, Annie Young, Helen B Higgins, Eila Watson, S. Gasson, Peter Barrett-Lee, Claire Hulme, Bethany Shinkins, Peter Hall, Andy Evans
{"title":"Abstract GS03-02: Mammographic surveillance in early breast cancer patients aged 50 years or over: results of the Mammo-50 non-inferiority trial of annual versus less frequent mammography","authors":"Janet Dunn, Peter Donnelly, Nada I. Elbeltagi, Andrea Marshall, Alastair Thompson, Riccardo Audisio, Sarah Pinder, David Cameron, Amy Campbell, Sue Hartup, Lesley Turner, Annie Young, Helen B Higgins, Eila Watson, S. Gasson, Peter Barrett-Lee, Claire Hulme, Bethany Shinkins, Peter Hall, Andy Evans","doi":"10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-gs03-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Introduction:\n Annual surveillance mammograms for an unspecified period, after treatment for early breast cancer, are widely practised in USA and Europe and represent a significant healthcare cost. Current UK guidelines recommend annual mammograms up to 5 years, then reverts to 3 year screening without specified risk stratification. Further evidence is needed to determine the optimum frequency and duration of mammographic surveillance.\n Methods:\n A multi-centre, randomised controlled, phase III trial of annual mammography versus 2-yearly for conservation surgery and 3-yearly mammograms for mastectomy patients up to 9 years. Women were eligible if aged 50 years or over at initial diagnosis of breast cancer (invasive or DCIS), and recurrence free 3 years post curative surgery.\n Primary outcome was breast cancer specific survival (BCSS). Secondary outcomes include recurrence free interval (RFI) and overall survival (OS). BCSS event was defined as deaths from breast cancer and RFI as any locoregional or distant invasive recurrence or new breast primary. 5000 women were needed to detect a 3% absolute non-inferiority (NI) margin for BCSS with 2.5% one-sided alpha and at least 85% power. Analyses were carried out on intention-to-treat basis.\n Results:\n 5235 women were randomised between April 2014 and September 2018. 4347 (83%) women were aged 55-75 years, 4203 (80%) had undergone conservation surgery, 4564 (87%) had invasive disease, 1162 (22%) had node positive disease, 4330 (83%) had ER positive tumours and 3812 (73%) were taking hormone therapy at the time of randomisation. Patient characteristics were balanced across arms.\n With a median of 5.4 years follow-up (interquartile range 4.6-5.9), 319 women have died; 104 of breast cancer (53 on annual arm; 51 on less frequent arm). BCSS at 5 years was 98.2% (95% CI 97.5-98.6%) on annual arm and 98.3% (95% CI 97.7-98.8%) on less frequent arm. Hazard ratio (HR) was 1.04 (95% CI 0.71 -1.54), demonstrating non-inferiority of less frequent mammograms at the 3% margin (NI p< 0.0001; critical value 2.71) and the 1% margin (NI p=0.02; critical value 1.56).\n 320 (6%) women had a new invasive breast cancer event (55 loco-regional recurrences, 85 new breast primaries, 139 distant recurrences and 41 with multiple invasive events); 164 on the annual arm compared to 156 on the less frequent arm. Five-year RFI was 94.2% (95% CI 93.2-95.1%) for the annual arm and 94.4% (95% CI 93.4-95.3%) for the less frequent arm; HR= 1.03; (95% CI 0.83-1.28) demonstrating non-inferiority at a 2% margin (NI p=0.006; critical value 1.36).\n OS at 5 years was 94.9% (95% CI 93.9-95.7%) on the annual arm and 94.3% (95% CI 93.3-95.2%) on the less frequent arm. Hazard ratio (HR) was 1.18 (95% CI 0.94 -1.47), demonstrating non-inferiority of less frequent mammograms at the 3% margin (NI p=0.003; critical value 1.61) and the 2.5% margin (NI p=0.02; critical value 1.51).\n A total of 14987 mammograms have been performed on the annual arm and 8047 on the less frequent arm. 1967 (75%) of 2618 women on the annual arm complied with their allocated schedule compared to 1775 (68%) of 2617 women on the less frequent arm. COVID-19 pandemic affected compliance; it is estimated that 345 (7%) women missed mammograms during the pandemic. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the 72% of women who fully complied with their scheduled mammograms as per protocol, and again NI was demonstrated for BCSS, RFI and OS.\n Conclusions:\n For patients aged 50 or older and 3 years post diagnosis, Mammo-50 demonstrated that less frequent mammograms were no worse than annual mammograms. These results provide evidence for less frequent mammographic surveillance for this patient population.\n Citation Format: Janet Dunn, Peter Donnelly, Nada Elbeltagi, Andrea Marshall, Alastair Thompson, Riccardo Audisio, Sarah Pinder, David Cameron, Amy Campbell, Sue Hartup, Lesley Turner, Annie Young, Helen Higgins, Eila Watson, Sophie Gasson, Peter Barrett-Lee, Claire Hulme, Bethany Shinkins, Peter Hall, Andy Evans. Mammographic surveillance in early breast cancer patients aged 50 years or over: results of the Mammo-50 non-inferiority trial of annual versus less frequent mammography [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr GS03-02.","PeriodicalId":12,"journal":{"name":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","volume":"18 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-gs03-02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Annual surveillance mammograms for an unspecified period, after treatment for early breast cancer, are widely practised in USA and Europe and represent a significant healthcare cost. Current UK guidelines recommend annual mammograms up to 5 years, then reverts to 3 year screening without specified risk stratification. Further evidence is needed to determine the optimum frequency and duration of mammographic surveillance. Methods: A multi-centre, randomised controlled, phase III trial of annual mammography versus 2-yearly for conservation surgery and 3-yearly mammograms for mastectomy patients up to 9 years. Women were eligible if aged 50 years or over at initial diagnosis of breast cancer (invasive or DCIS), and recurrence free 3 years post curative surgery. Primary outcome was breast cancer specific survival (BCSS). Secondary outcomes include recurrence free interval (RFI) and overall survival (OS). BCSS event was defined as deaths from breast cancer and RFI as any locoregional or distant invasive recurrence or new breast primary. 5000 women were needed to detect a 3% absolute non-inferiority (NI) margin for BCSS with 2.5% one-sided alpha and at least 85% power. Analyses were carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Results: 5235 women were randomised between April 2014 and September 2018. 4347 (83%) women were aged 55-75 years, 4203 (80%) had undergone conservation surgery, 4564 (87%) had invasive disease, 1162 (22%) had node positive disease, 4330 (83%) had ER positive tumours and 3812 (73%) were taking hormone therapy at the time of randomisation. Patient characteristics were balanced across arms. With a median of 5.4 years follow-up (interquartile range 4.6-5.9), 319 women have died; 104 of breast cancer (53 on annual arm; 51 on less frequent arm). BCSS at 5 years was 98.2% (95% CI 97.5-98.6%) on annual arm and 98.3% (95% CI 97.7-98.8%) on less frequent arm. Hazard ratio (HR) was 1.04 (95% CI 0.71 -1.54), demonstrating non-inferiority of less frequent mammograms at the 3% margin (NI p< 0.0001; critical value 2.71) and the 1% margin (NI p=0.02; critical value 1.56). 320 (6%) women had a new invasive breast cancer event (55 loco-regional recurrences, 85 new breast primaries, 139 distant recurrences and 41 with multiple invasive events); 164 on the annual arm compared to 156 on the less frequent arm. Five-year RFI was 94.2% (95% CI 93.2-95.1%) for the annual arm and 94.4% (95% CI 93.4-95.3%) for the less frequent arm; HR= 1.03; (95% CI 0.83-1.28) demonstrating non-inferiority at a 2% margin (NI p=0.006; critical value 1.36). OS at 5 years was 94.9% (95% CI 93.9-95.7%) on the annual arm and 94.3% (95% CI 93.3-95.2%) on the less frequent arm. Hazard ratio (HR) was 1.18 (95% CI 0.94 -1.47), demonstrating non-inferiority of less frequent mammograms at the 3% margin (NI p=0.003; critical value 1.61) and the 2.5% margin (NI p=0.02; critical value 1.51). A total of 14987 mammograms have been performed on the annual arm and 8047 on the less frequent arm. 1967 (75%) of 2618 women on the annual arm complied with their allocated schedule compared to 1775 (68%) of 2617 women on the less frequent arm. COVID-19 pandemic affected compliance; it is estimated that 345 (7%) women missed mammograms during the pandemic. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the 72% of women who fully complied with their scheduled mammograms as per protocol, and again NI was demonstrated for BCSS, RFI and OS. Conclusions: For patients aged 50 or older and 3 years post diagnosis, Mammo-50 demonstrated that less frequent mammograms were no worse than annual mammograms. These results provide evidence for less frequent mammographic surveillance for this patient population. Citation Format: Janet Dunn, Peter Donnelly, Nada Elbeltagi, Andrea Marshall, Alastair Thompson, Riccardo Audisio, Sarah Pinder, David Cameron, Amy Campbell, Sue Hartup, Lesley Turner, Annie Young, Helen Higgins, Eila Watson, Sophie Gasson, Peter Barrett-Lee, Claire Hulme, Bethany Shinkins, Peter Hall, Andy Evans. Mammographic surveillance in early breast cancer patients aged 50 years or over: results of the Mammo-50 non-inferiority trial of annual versus less frequent mammography [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr GS03-02.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
摘要 GS03-02:50岁或50岁以上早期乳腺癌患者的乳腺X线照相监测:Mammo-50非劣效性试验结果:每年进行乳腺X线照相检查与减少检查次数的比较
导言:在美国和欧洲,早期乳腺癌患者在接受治疗后,每年都要进行乳房 X 线照相检查,检查时间不明确,这种做法非常普遍,而且需要大量的医疗费用。英国目前的指南建议每年进行一次乳房 X 光检查,最长 5 年,然后恢复到 3 年筛查一次,但不进行特定的风险分层。需要进一步的证据来确定乳房 X 线照相监测的最佳频率和持续时间。方法:一项多中心、随机对照、III 期试验,研究对象为每年进行一次乳房 X 光检查与每 2 年进行一次乳房保护性手术,以及每 3 年进行一次乳房 X 光检查的乳房切除术患者,研究时间长达 9 年。初次诊断为乳腺癌(浸润性或 DCIS)时年龄在 50 岁或以上、治愈手术后 3 年无复发的妇女均符合条件。主要结果是乳腺癌特异性生存率(BCSS)。次要结果包括无复发间隔期(RFI)和总生存期(OS)。BCSS事件定义为乳腺癌死亡,RFI定义为任何局部或远处浸润性复发或新的乳腺癌原发。在2.5%的单侧α和至少85%的功率下,需要5000名妇女才能检测到3%的BCSS绝对非劣效(NI)差值。分析以意向治疗为基础。结果5235名妇女在2014年4月至2018年9月期间接受了随机治疗。4347名(83%)女性年龄在55-75岁之间,4203名(80%)接受过保留手术,4564名(87%)患有浸润性疾病,1162名(22%)患有结节阳性疾病,4330名(83%)患有ER阳性肿瘤,3812名(73%)在随机化时正在接受激素治疗。各组患者特征均衡。中位随访时间为 5.4 年(四分位间范围为 4.6-5.9),共有 319 名妇女死亡,其中 104 人死于乳腺癌(53 人死于年度随访组;51 人死于较少随访组)。5年后的BCSS为:年度组98.2%(95% CI 97.5-98.6%),低频率组98.3%(95% CI 97.7-98.8%)。危险比(HR)为1.04(95% CI 0.71-1.54),表明在3%的临界值(NI p< 0.0001;临界值2.71)和1%的临界值(NI p=0.02;临界值1.56)上,减少乳房X光检查的频率并无劣势。320名(6%)妇女发生了新的浸润性乳腺癌事件(55例局部区域复发、85例新的乳腺原发癌、139例远处复发和41例多次浸润性事件);每年检查一次的妇女有164名,而不太频繁检查的妇女有156名。每年治疗组的五年RFI为94.2%(95% CI 93.2-95.1%),较少治疗组的五年RFI为94.4%(95% CI 93.4-95.3%);HR=1.03;(95% CI 0.83-1.28),在2%的边缘显示出非劣效性(NI p=0.006;临界值1.36)。每年进行一次治疗的治疗组 5 年的 OS 为 94.9% (95% CI 93.9-95.7%),较少进行治疗的治疗组为 94.3% (95% CI 93.3-95.2%)。危险比(HR)为1.18(95% CI 0.94-1.47),表明在3%的临界值(NI p=0.003;临界值1.61)和2.5%的临界值(NI p=0.02;临界值1.51)下,减少乳房X光检查的频率不具劣势。每年进行一次乳房 X 光检查的患者共有 14987 人,不经常进行乳房 X 光检查的患者共有 8047 人。在每年进行一次检查的 2618 名妇女中,有 1967 人(75%)遵守了分配的时间表,而在不太频繁进行检查的 2617 名妇女中,有 1775 人(68%)遵守了分配的时间表。COVID-19大流行影响了患者的依从性;据估计,有345名(7%)妇女在大流行期间错过了乳房X光检查。我们对72%完全按计划进行乳房X光检查的妇女进行了敏感性分析,结果再次证明了BCSS、RFI和OS的NI。结论对于年龄在 50 岁或以上、确诊后 3 年的患者,Mammo-50 证明减少乳房 X 光检查的频率并不比每年进行一次乳房 X 光检查差。这些结果为减少这类患者的乳房X光检查频率提供了证据。引用格式:Janet Dunn、Peter Donnelly、Nada Elbeltagi、Andrea Marshall、Alastair Thompson、Riccardo Audisio、Sarah Pinder、David Cameron、Amy Campbell、Sue Hartup、Lesley Turner、Annie Young、Helen Higgins、Eila Watson、Sophie Gasson、Peter Barrett-Lee、Claire Hulme、Bethany Shinkins、Peter Hall、Andy Evans。50 岁或以上早期乳腺癌患者的乳腺造影监测:Mammo-50 非劣效性试验结果:每年乳腺造影与较少频率乳腺造影对比[摘要]。In:2023 年圣安东尼奥乳腺癌研讨会论文集;2023 年 12 月 5-9 日;德克萨斯州圣安东尼奥。费城(宾夕法尼亚州):AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr GS03-02。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Chemical Health & Safety
ACS Chemical Health & Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety focuses on news, information, and ideas relating to issues and advances in chemical health and safety. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety covers up-to-the minute, in-depth views of safety issues ranging from OSHA and EPA regulations to the safe handling of hazardous waste, from the latest innovations in effective chemical hygiene practices to the courts'' most recent rulings on safety-related lawsuits. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety presents real-world information that health, safety and environmental professionals and others responsible for the safety of their workplaces can put to use right away, identifying potential and developing safety concerns before they do real harm.
期刊最新文献
Developing an In-House Application for Hazardous Chemicals Management Calix[4]resorcinarenes as Stable, Metal-Free Unexplored and Unfathomed Material for Iodine Capture: Experimental and Theoretical Insights Risk Assessment of Ammonia Fueled Ships: Consequences on Human Health of Ammonia Releases from Damaged Fuel Storage Tanks Preparation of Fe-doped In2S3/In2O3 Composite for Photocatalytic Degradation of Tetracycline The Gist of the List
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1