Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This exploratory analysis aims to assess the clinical feasibility of transitioning breast cancer (BC) survivors from intensive follow-up to a long-term surveillance strategy based on double-reading mammography within a population-based screening model.</p> Material and methods <p>Women who underwent BC surgery in 2013 and were followed for 10&#xa0;years at a tertiary cancer center in Italy were retrospectively included. Recurrence rates and time to relapse were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test and Chi-square test. Available follow-up mammograms were independently reviewed by three experienced radiologists, blinded to clinical information, using a positive/negative binary scale. Pathology served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and inter-reader agreement (Cohen’s and Fleiss’ <i>κ</i>) were calculated. Simulated double reading was analyzed using McNemar’s test. A <i>p</i> value &lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p> Results <p>Among 505 women, 46 (9.1%) experienced BC recurrence: 19/271 (7.0%) in Luminal A, 6/84 (7.1%) in Luminal B, 3/28 (10.7%) in triple-negative (TN), 7/57 (12.3%) in HER2-positive (HER2 +) cancers, and 11/65 (16.9%) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which showed the highest recurrence rate (<i>p</i> = 0.0024). Median time to relapse ranged from 4.7&#xa0;years (TN) to 8.1&#xa0;years (Luminal A), with no statistically significant difference among the subtypes (<i>p</i> = 0.190). Individual reader sensitivity ranged from 67.7 to 74.2%, increasing to 77.4–83.9% with double reading. PPVs ranged from 95.4 to 100% for single reading and from 96.0% to 96.2% for double reading. Differences in sensitivity and PPV between single and double reading were not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 1.0). Five recurrences (16.1%) were mammographically occult and clinically detected. Inter-reader agreement was moderate to good (Cohen’s <i>κ</i> = 0.38–0.69; Fleiss’ <i>κ</i> = 0.57).</p> Conclusions <p>Double-reading mammography showed a higher detection rate of BC recurrences compared to single reading in this exploratory setting, suggesting its potential role as a long-term surveillance strategy for BC survivors. However, the occurrence of relapses outside the mammographic field of view warrants careful consideration.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluating double-reading mammography for long-term surveillance in breast cancer survivors: a retrospective exploratory analysis from a single center

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月6日

查看全文
  • Giulia Vatteroni,
  • Rubina Manuela Trimboli,
  • Federica Fici,
  • Isabella Bolengo,
  • Giulia Pinna,
  • Giulia Pruneddu,
  • Elisa Salpietro,
  • Paola Nardi,
  • Nicolò Turri,
  • Damiano Gentile,
  • Corrado Tinterri,
  • Daniela Bernardi

摘要

Purpose

This exploratory analysis aims to assess the clinical feasibility of transitioning breast cancer (BC) survivors from intensive follow-up to a long-term surveillance strategy based on double-reading mammography within a population-based screening model.

Material and methods

Women who underwent BC surgery in 2013 and were followed for 10 years at a tertiary cancer center in Italy were retrospectively included. Recurrence rates and time to relapse were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test and Chi-square test. Available follow-up mammograms were independently reviewed by three experienced radiologists, blinded to clinical information, using a positive/negative binary scale. Pathology served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and inter-reader agreement (Cohen’s and Fleiss’ κ) were calculated. Simulated double reading was analyzed using McNemar’s test. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Among 505 women, 46 (9.1%) experienced BC recurrence: 19/271 (7.0%) in Luminal A, 6/84 (7.1%) in Luminal B, 3/28 (10.7%) in triple-negative (TN), 7/57 (12.3%) in HER2-positive (HER2 +) cancers, and 11/65 (16.9%) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which showed the highest recurrence rate (p = 0.0024). Median time to relapse ranged from 4.7 years (TN) to 8.1 years (Luminal A), with no statistically significant difference among the subtypes (p = 0.190). Individual reader sensitivity ranged from 67.7 to 74.2%, increasing to 77.4–83.9% with double reading. PPVs ranged from 95.4 to 100% for single reading and from 96.0% to 96.2% for double reading. Differences in sensitivity and PPV between single and double reading were not statistically significant (p = 1.0). Five recurrences (16.1%) were mammographically occult and clinically detected. Inter-reader agreement was moderate to good (Cohen’s κ = 0.38–0.69; Fleiss’ κ = 0.57).

Conclusions

Double-reading mammography showed a higher detection rate of BC recurrences compared to single reading in this exploratory setting, suggesting its potential role as a long-term surveillance strategy for BC survivors. However, the occurrence of relapses outside the mammographic field of view warrants careful consideration.