Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 2000 Jul 24;83(4):487–492. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1286

Pathology characteristics that optimize outcome prediction of a breast screening trial

T J Anderson 1, F E Alexander 2, J Lamb 1, A Smith 2, A P M Forrest 3
PMCID: PMC2374653  PMID: 10945496

Abstract

The ability of pathology characteristics to predict outcome was tested with the 1029 cancers accumulated in the Edinburgh Randomized Trial of breast screening after 14 years follow-up. The majority (55.7%) were in the screening arm, which also had more operable cases (81.3% vs 62.2%); the reduction in the proportion of inoperable breast cancers in a UK female population invited to mammographic screening is a notable effect of the trial. In the 691 operable invasive cases the size, histological type, grade, node status and node number group individually showed highly significant (P< 0.001) association with survival. In multivariate analysis the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) derived from these features showed highly significant association with survival (P< 0.001). However, when first adjusted for NPI, combined addition of pathological size in 6 categories and histological type as special or not had an independent association with survival that was statistically firmly based (P< 0.001). For operable breast cancer the gains are in smaller sizes, better histological features, and higher proportion node negative. The weighting factors applied to pathology indicators of survival in the NPI are not optimal for a population included in a trial of screening. In particular, a linear trend of the index with pathological size is not appropriate. Inclusion of histological type as special or not improves the index further. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign

Keywords: breast cancer, screening, pathology, prognosis, surrogate measure

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (75.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alexander F. E., Anderson T. J., Brown H. K., Forrest A. P., Hepburn W., Kirkpatrick A. E., Muir B. B., Prescott R. J., Smith A. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet. 1999 Jun 5;353(9168):1903–1908. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)07413-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman D. G., Lausen B., Sauerbrei W., Schumacher M. Dangers of using "optimal" cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 Jun 1;86(11):829–835. doi: 10.1093/jnci/86.11.829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson T. J., Alexander F. E., Forrest P. M. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer. 2000 Apr 1;88(7):1758–1759. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson T. J., Lamb J., Alexander F., Lutz W., Chetty U., Forrest A. P., Kirkpatrick A., Muir B., Roberts M. M., Huggins A. Comparative pathology of prevalent and incident cancers detected by breast screening. Edinburgh Breast Screening Project. Lancet. 1986 Mar 8;1(8480):519–523. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90882-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson T. J., Lamb J., Donnan P., Alexander F. E., Huggins A., Muir B. B., Kirkpatrick A. E., Chetty U., Hepburn W., Smith A. Comparative pathology of breast cancer in a randomised trial of screening. Br J Cancer. 1991 Jul;64(1):108–113. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Andersson I., Aspegren K., Janzon L., Landberg T., Lindholm K., Linell F., Ljungberg O., Ranstam J., Sigfússon B. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. BMJ. 1988 Oct 15;297(6654):943–948. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6654.943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Balslev I., Axelsson C. K., Zedeler K., Rasmussen B. B., Carstensen B., Mouridsen H. T. The Nottingham Prognostic Index applied to 9,149 patients from the studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1994;32(3):281–290. doi: 10.1007/BF00666005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Buettner P., Garbe C., Guggenmoos-Holzmann I. Problems in defining cutoff points of continuous prognostic factors: example of tumor thickness in primary cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Nov;50(11):1201–1210. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00155-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Day N. E., Williams D. R., Khaw K. T. Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer. 1989 Jun;59(6):954–958. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1989.203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon J. M., Page D. L., Anderson T. J., Lee D., Elton R. A., Stewart H. J., Forrest A. P. Long-term survivors after breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1985 Jun;72(6):445–448. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800720614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Duffy S. W., Tabar L., Fagerberg G., Gad A., Gröntoft O., South M. C., Day N. E. Breast screening, prognostic factors and survival--results from the Swedish two county study. Br J Cancer. 1991 Dec;64(6):1133–1138. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Forrest A. P., Everington D., McDonald C. C., Steele R. J., Chetty U., Stewart H. J. The Edinburgh randomized trial of axillary sampling or clearance after mastectomy. Br J Surg. 1995 Nov;82(11):1504–1508. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800821118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Frisell J., Eklund G., Hellström L., Somell A. Analysis of interval breast carcinomas in a randomized screening trial in Stockholm. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1987;9(3):219–225. doi: 10.1007/BF01806383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Galea M. H., Blamey R. W., Elston C. E., Ellis I. O. The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1992;22(3):207–219. doi: 10.1007/BF01840834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Haybittle J. L., Blamey R. W., Elston C. W., Johnson J., Doyle P. J., Campbell F. C., Nicholson R. I., Griffiths K. A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1982 Mar;45(3):361–366. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1982.62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nyström L., Rutqvist L. E., Wall S., Lindgren A., Lindqvist M., Rydén S., Andersson I., Bjurstam N., Fagerberg G., Frisell J. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 1993 Apr 17;341(8851):973–978. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91067-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Pereira H., Pinder S. E., Sibbering D. M., Galea M. H., Elston C. W., Blamey R. W., Robertson J. F., Ellis I. O. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. IV: Should you be a typer or a grader? A comparative study of two histological prognostic features in operable breast carcinoma. Histopathology. 1995 Sep;27(3):219–226. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1995.tb00213.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Roberts M. M., Alexander F. E., Anderson T. J., Forrest A. P., Hepburn W., Huggins A., Kirkpatrick A. E., Lamb J., Lutz W., Muir B. B. The Edinburgh randomised trial of screening for breast cancer: description of method. Br J Cancer. 1984 Jul;50(1):1–6. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1984.132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sauerbrei W., Hübner K., Schmoor C., Schumacher M. Validation of existing and development of new prognostic classification schemes in node negative breast cancer. German Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997 Jan;42(2):149–163. doi: 10.1023/a:1005733404976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Steele R. J., Forrest A. P., Gibson T., Stewart H. J., Chetty U. The efficacy of lower axillary sampling in obtaining lymph node status in breast cancer: a controlled randomized trial. Br J Surg. 1985 May;72(5):368–369. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800720512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Tabar L., Fagerberg G., Chen H. H., Duffy S. W., Gad A. Tumour development, histology and grade of breast cancers: prognosis and progression. Int J Cancer. 1996 May 16;66(4):413–419. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960516)66:4<413::AID-IJC1>3.0.CO;2-Z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Tabàr L., Fagerberg G., Duffy S. W., Day N. E., Gad A., Gröntoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992 Jan;30(1):187–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Tabár L., Chen H. H., Duffy S. W., Yen M. F., Chiang C. F., Dean P. B., Smith R. A. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study. Lancet. 2000 Feb 5;355(9202):429–433. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)82008-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Tabár L., Duffy S. W., Vitak B., Chen H. H., Prevost T. C. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer. 1999 Aug 1;86(3):449–462. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Tabár L., Fagerberg C. J., Gad A., Baldetorp L., Holmberg L. H., Gröntoft O., Ljungquist U., Lundström B., Månson J. C., Eklund G. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985 Apr 13;1(8433):829–832. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92204-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Todd J. H., Dowle C., Williams M. R., Elston C. W., Ellis I. O., Hinton C. P., Blamey R. W., Haybittle J. L. Confirmation of a prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1987 Oct;56(4):489–492. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1987.230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES