Search

Deep learning-based mammographic evaluations could noninvasively assess response to breast cancer chemoprevention. We evaluated change in a convolutional neural network-based breast cancer risk model applied to mammograms among women enrolled in SWOG S0812, which randomly assigned 208 premenopausal high-risk women to receive oral vitamin D3 20 000 IU weekly or placebo for 12 months. We applied the convolutional neural network model to mammograms collected at baseline (n = 109), 12 months (n = 97), and 24 months (n = 67) and compared changes in convolutional neural network-based risk score between treatment groups. Change in convolutional neural network-based risk score was not statistically significantly different between vitamin D and placebo groups at 12 months (0.005 vs 0.002, P = .875) or at 24 months (0.020 vs 0.001, P = .563). The findings are consistent with the primary analysis of S0812, which did not demonstrate statistically significant changes in mammographic density with vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo. There is an ongoing need to evaluate biomarkers of response to novel breast cancer chemopreventive agents.

BACKGROUND: Excision is routinely recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) found on core biopsy given cancer upstage rates of near 20%. Identifying a cohort at low-risk for upstage may avoid low-value surgery. Objectives were to elucidate factors predictive of upstage in ADH, specifically near-complete core sampling, to potentially define a group at low upstage risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional, multi-institutional study from 2015 to 2019 of 221 ADH lesions in 216 patients who underwent excision or active observation (≥ 12 months imaging surveillance, mean follow-up 32.6 months) evaluated clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and procedural factors for association with upstage. Radiologists prospectively examined imaging for lesional size and sampling proportion. RESULTS: Upstage occurred in 37 (16.7%) lesions, 25 (67.6%) to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 12 (32.4%) to invasive cancer. Factors independently predictive of upstage were lesion size ≥ 10 mm (OR 5.47, 95% CI 2.03-14.77, p < 0.001), pathologic suspicion for DCIS (OR 12.29, 95% CI 3.24-46.56, p < 0.001), and calcification distribution pattern (OR 8.08, 95% CI 2.04-32.00, p = 0.003, regional; OR 19.28, 95% CI 3.47-106.97, p < 0.001, linear). Near-complete sampling was not correlated with upstage (p = 0.64). All three significant predictors were absent in 65 (29.4%) cases, with a 1.5% upstage rate. CONCLUSIONS: The upstage rate among 221 ADH lesions was 16.7%, highest in lesions ≥ 10 mm, with pathologic suspicion of DCIS, and linear/regional calcifications on mammography. Conversely, 30% of the cohort exhibited all low-risk factors, with an upstage rate < 2%, suggesting that active surveillance may be permissible in lieu of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Following a breast cancer diagnosis, it is uncertain whether womens breast density knowledge influences their willingness to undergo pre-operative imaging to detect additional cancer in their breasts. We evaluated womens breast density knowledge and their willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative testing. METHODS: We surveyed women identified in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aged ≥ 18 years, with first breast cancer diagnosed within the prior 6-18 months, who had at least one breast density measurement within the 5 years prior to their diagnosis. We assessed womens breast density knowledge and correlates of willingness to delay treatment for 6 or more weeks for pre-operative imaging via logistic regression. RESULTS: Survey participation was 28.3% (969/3,430). Seventy-two percent (469/647) of women with dense and 11% (34/322) with non-dense breasts correctly knew their density (p

The breasts undergo marked physiologic changes during lactation that can make conventional imaging evaluation with mammography and US challenging. MRI can be a valuable diagnostic aid to differentiate physiologic and benign processes from malignancy in patients who are lactating. In addition, MRI may allow more accurate delineation of disease involvement than does conventional imaging and assists in locoregional staging, screening of the contralateral breast, assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and surgical planning. Although the American College of Radiology recommends against patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MRI during pregnancy because of fetal safety concerns, contrast-enhanced MRI is safe during lactation. As more women delay childbearing, the incidence of pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) and breast cancer in lactating women beyond the 1st year after pregnancy is increasing. Thus, MRI is increasingly being performed in lactating women for diagnostic evaluation and screening of patients at high risk. PABC is associated with a worse prognosis than that of non-PABCs, with delays in diagnosis contributing to an increased likelihood of advanced-stage disease at diagnosis. Familiarity with the MRI features of the lactating breast and the appearance of various pathologic conditions is essential to avoid diagnostic pitfalls and prevent delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment. The authors review clinical indications for breast MRI during lactation, describe characteristic features of the lactating breast at MRI, and compare MRI features of a spectrum of benign and malignant breast abnormalities. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material. See the invited commentary by Chikarmane in this issue.

BACKGROUND: Density notification laws require notifying women of dense breasts with dense breast prevalence varying by race/ethnicity. We evaluated whether differences in body mass index (BMI) account for differences in dense breasts prevalence by race/ethnicity. METHODS: Prevalence of dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense) according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) were estimated from 2,667,207 mammography examinations among 866,033 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) from January 2005 through April 2021. Prevalence ratios (PR) for dense breasts relative to overall prevalence by race/ethnicity were estimated by standardizing race/ethnicity prevalence in the BCSC to the 2020 U.S. population, and adjusting for age, menopausal status, and BMI using logistic regression. RESULTS: Dense breasts were most prevalent among Asian women (66.0%) followed by non-Hispanic/Latina (NH) White (45.5%), Hispanic/Latina (45.3%), and NH Black (37.0%) women. Obesity was most prevalent in Black women (58.4%) followed by Hispanic/Latina (39.3%), NH White (30.6%), and Asian (8.5%) women. The adjusted prevalence of dense breasts was 19% higher [PR = 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.20] in Asian women, 8% higher (PR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.08) in Black women, the same in Hispanic/Latina women (PR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01), and 4% lower (PR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.96-0.97) in NH White women relative to the overall prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important differences in breast density prevalence are present across racial/ethnic groups after accounting for age, menopausal status, and BMI. IMPACT: If breast density is the sole criterion used to notify women of dense breasts and discuss supplemental screening it may result in implementing inequitable screening strategies across racial/ethnic groups. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated diagnostic mammography among women with a breast lump to determine whether performance varied across racial and ethnic groups. METHODS: This study included 51,014 diagnostic mammograms performed between 2005 and 2018 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium among Asian/Pacific Islander (12%), Black (7%), Hispanic/Latina (6%), and White (75%) women reporting a lump. Breast cancers occurring within 1 year were ascertained from cancer registry linkages. Multivariable regression was used to adjust performance statistic comparisons for breast cancer risk factors, mammogram modality, demographics, additional imaging, and imaging facility. RESULTS: Cancer detection rates were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander [per 1,000 exams, 84.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.0-98.2)] and Black women [81.4 (95% CI: 69.4-95.2)] and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [42.9 (95% CI: 34.2-53.6)]. Positive predictive values (PPV) were higher among Black [37.0% (95% CI: 31.2-43.3)] and White [37.0% (95% CI: 30.0-44.6)] women and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [22.0% (95% CI: 17.2-27.7)]. False-positive results were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 exams, 183.9 (95% CI: 126.7-259.2)] and lowest among White women [112.4 (95% CI: 86.1-145.5)]. After adjustment, false-positive and cancer detection rates remained higher for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women (vs. Hispanic/Latina and White). Adjusted PPV was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander women. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with a lump, Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women were more likely to have cancer detected and more likely to receive a false-positive result compared with White and Hispanic/Latina women. IMPACT: Strategies for optimizing diagnostic mammography among women with a lump may vary by racial/ethnic group, but additional factors that influence performance differences need to be identified. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

BackgroundBreast density is an important risk factor for breast cancer and is known to be associated with characteristics such as age, race, and hormone levels; however, it is unclear what factors contribute to changes in breast density in postmenopausal women over time. Understanding factors associated with density changes may enable a better understanding of breast cancer risk and facilitate potential strategies for prevention.MethodsThis study investigated potential associations between personal factors and changes in mammographic density in a cohort of 3,392 postmenopausal women with no personal history of breast cancer between 2011 and 2017. Self-reported information on demographics, breast and reproductive history, and lifestyle factors, including body mass index (BMI), alcohol intake, smoking, and physical activity, was collected by an electronic intake form, and breast imaging reporting and database system (BI-RADS) mammographic density scores were obtained from electronic medical records. Factors associated with a longitudinal increase or decrease in mammographic density were identified using Fisher's exact test and multivariate conditional logistic regression.Results7.9% of women exhibited a longitudinal decrease in mammographic density, 6.7% exhibited an increase, and 85.4% exhibited no change. Longitudinal changes in mammographic density were correlated with age, race/ethnicity, and age at menopause in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, Asian women were more likely to exhibit a longitudinal increase in mammographic density and less likely to exhibit a decrease compared to White women. On the other hand, obese women were less likely to exhibit an increase and more likely to exhibit a decrease compared to normal weight women. Women who underwent menopause at age 55 years or older were less likely to exhibit a decrease in mammographic density compared to women who underwent menopause at a younger age. Besides obesity, lifestyle factors (alcohol intake, smoking, and physical activity) were not associated with longitudinal changes in mammographic density.ConclusionsThe associations we observed between Asian race/obesity and longitudinal changes in BI-RADS density in postmenopausal women are paradoxical in that breast cancer risk is lower in Asian women and higher in obese women. However, the association between later age at menopause and a decreased likelihood of decreasing in BI-RADS density over time is consistent with later age at menopause being a risk factor for breast cancer and suggests a potential relationship between greater cumulative lifetime estrogen exposure and relative stability in breast density after menopause. Our findings support the complexity of the relationships between breast density, BMI, hormone exposure, and breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: There are no consensus guidelines for supplemental breast cancer screening with whole-breast ultrasound. However, criteria for women at high risk of mammography screening failures (interval invasive cancer or advanced cancer) have been identified. Mammography screening failure risk was evaluated among women undergoing supplemental ultrasound screening in clinical practice compared with women undergoing mammography alone. METHODS: A total of 38,166 screening ultrasounds and 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening were identified during 2014-2020 within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Risk of interval invasive cancer and advanced cancer were determined using BCSC prediction models. High interval invasive breast cancer risk was defined as heterogeneously dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥2.5% or extremely dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥1.67%. Intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was defined as BCSC 6-year advanced breast cancer risk ≥0.38%. RESULTS: A total of 95.3% of 38,166 ultrasounds were among women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, compared with 41.8% of 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening (p

OBJECTIVE: When multiple surveillance mammograms are performed within an annual interval, the current guidance for one-year follow-up to determine breast cancer status results in shared follow-up periods in which a single breast cancer diagnosis can be attributed to multiple preceding examinations, posing a challenge for standardized performance assessment. We assessed the impact of using follow-up periods that eliminate the artifactual inflation of second breast cancer diagnoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated surveillance mammograms from 2007-2016 in women with treated breast cancer linked with tumor registry and pathology outcomes. Second breast cancers included ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer diagnosed during one-year follow-up. The cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, and specificity were compared using different follow-up periods: standard one-year follow-up per the American College of Radiology versus follow-up that was shortened at the next surveillance mammogram if less than one year (truncated follow-up). Performance measures were calculated overall and by indication (screening, evaluation for breast problem, and short interval follow-up). RESULTS: Of 117971 surveillance mammograms, 20% (n = 23533) were followed by another surveillance mammogram within one year. Standard follow-up identified 1597 mammograms that were associated with second breast cancers. With truncated follow-up, the breast cancer status of 179 mammograms (11.2%) was revised, resulting in 1418 mammograms associated with unique second breast cancers. The interval cancer rate decreased with truncated versus standard follow-up (3.6 versus 4.9 per 1000 mammograms, respectively), with a difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1). The overall sensitivity increased to 70.4% from 63.7%, for the truncated versus standard follow-up, with a difference (95% CI) of 6.6% (5.6%, 7.7%). The specificity remained stable at 98.1%. CONCLUSION: Truncated follow-up, if less than one year to the next surveillance mammogram, enabled second breast cancers to be associated with a single preceding mammogram and resulted in more accurate estimates of diagnostic performance for national benchmarks.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer risk models guide screening and chemoprevention decisions, but the extent and effect of variability among models, particularly at the individual level, is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the accuracy and disagreement between commonly used risk models in categorizing individual women as average vs. high risk for developing invasive breast cancer. DESIGN: Comparison of three risk prediction models: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model, and International Breast Intervention Study (IBIS) model. SUBJECTS: Women 40 to 74 years of age presenting for screening mammography at a multisite health system between 2011 and 2015, with 5-year follow-up for cancer outcome. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of model discrimination and calibration at the population level and inter-model agreement for 5-year breast cancer risk at the individual level using two cutoffs (≥ 1.67% and ≥ 3.0%). KEY RESULTS: A total of 31,115 women were included. When using the ≥ 1.67% threshold, more than 21% of women were classified as high risk for developing breast cancer in the next 5 years by one model, but average risk by another model. When using the ≥ 3.0% threshold, more than 5% of women had disagreements in risk severity between models. Almost half of the women (46.6%) were classified as high risk by at least one of the three models (e.g., if all three models were applied) for the threshold of ≥ 1.67%, and 11.1% were classified as high risk for ≥ 3.0%. All three models had similar accuracy at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk estimates for individual women vary substantially, depending on which risk assessment model is used. The choice of cutoff used to define high risk can lead to adverse effects for screening, preventive care, and quality of life for misidentified individuals. Clinicians need to be aware of the high false-positive and false-negative rates and variation between models when talking with patients.

Background Prior cross-sectional studies have observed that breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM). Purpose To evaluate breast cancer screening outcomes with DBT versus DM on successive screening rounds. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from 58 breast imaging facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were collected. Analysis included women aged 40-79 years undergoing DBT or DM screening from 2011 to 2020. Absolute differences in screening outcomes by modality and screening round were estimated during the study period by using generalized estimating equations with marginal standardization to adjust for differences in womens risk characteristics across modality and round. Results A total of 523 485 DBT examinations (mean age of women, 58.7 years ± 9.7 [SD]) and 1 008 123 DM examinations (mean age, 58.4 years ± 9.8) among 504 863 women were evaluated. DBT and DM recall rates decreased with successive screening round, but absolute recall rates in each round were significantly lower with DBT versus DM (round 1 difference, -3.3% [95% CI: -4.6, -2.1] [P < .001]; round 2 difference, -1.8% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.7] [P = .003]; round 3 or above difference, -1.2% [95% CI: -2.4, -0.1] [P = .03]). DBT had significantly higher cancer detection (difference, 0.6 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 0.2, 1.1]; P = .009) compared with DM only for round 3 and above. There were no significant differences in interval cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.24, 0.30] [P = .96]; round 2 or above difference, 0.04 [95% CI: -0.19, 0.31] [P = .76]) or total advanced cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.15, 0.19] [P = .94]; round 2 or above difference, -0.06 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.11] [P = .43]). Conclusion DBT had lower recall rates and could help detect more cancers than DM across three screening rounds, with no difference in interval or advanced cancer rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

Background Although several clinical breast cancer risk models are used to guide screening and prevention, they have only moderate discrimination. Purpose To compare selected existing mammography artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model for prediction of 5-year risk. Materials and Methods This retrospective case-cohort study included data in women with a negative screening mammographic examination (no visible evidence of cancer) in 2016, who were followed until 2021 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Women with prior breast cancer or a highly penetrant gene mutation were excluded. Of the 324 009 eligible women, a random subcohort was selected, regardless of cancer status, to which all additional patients with breast cancer were added. The index screening mammographic examination was used as input for five AI algorithms to generate continuous scores that were compared with the BCSC clinical risk score. Risk estimates for incident breast cancer 0 to 5 years after the initial mammographic examination were calculated using a time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results The subcohort included 13 628 patients, of whom 193 had incident cancer. Incident cancers in eligible patients (additional 4391 of 324 009) were also included. For incident cancers at 0 to 5 years, the time-dependent AUC for BCSC was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.62). AI algorithms had higher time-dependent AUCs than did BCSC, ranging from 0.63 to 0.67 (Bonferroni-adjusted P < .0016). Time-dependent AUCs for combined BCSC and AI models were slightly higher than AI alone (AI with BCSC time-dependent AUC range, 0.66-0.68; Bonferroni-adjusted P < .0016). Conclusion When using a negative screening examination, AI algorithms performed better than the BCSC risk model for predicting breast cancer risk at 0 to 5 years. Combined AI and BCSC models further improved prediction. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

Accurate characterization of microcalcifications (MCs) in 2D digital mammography is a necessary step toward reducing the diagnostic uncertainty associated with the callback of indeterminate MCs. Quantitative analysis of MCs can better identify MCs with a higher likelihood of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive cancer. However, automated identification and segmentation of MCs remain challenging with high false positive rates. We present a two-stage multiscale approach to MC segmentation in 2D full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) and diagnostic magnification views. Candidate objects are first delineated using blob detection and Hessian analysis. A regression convolutional network, trained to output a function with a higher response near MCs, chooses the objects which constitute actual MCs. The method was trained and validated on 435 screening and diagnostic FFDMs from two separate datasets. We then used our approach to segment MCs on magnification views of 248 cases with amorphous MCs. We modeled the extracted features using gradient tree boosting to classify each case as benign or malignant. Compared to state-of-the-art comparison methods, our approach achieved superior mean intersection over the union (0.670 ± 0.121 per image versus 0.524 ± 0.034 per image), intersection over the union per MC object (0.607 ± 0.250 versus 0.363 ± 0.278) and true positive rate of 0.744 versus 0.581 at 0.4 false positive detections per square centimeter. Features generated using our approach outperformed the comparison method (0.763 versus 0.710 AUC) in distinguishing amorphous calcifications as benign or malignant.

Background It is important to establish screening mammography performance benchmarks for quality improvement efforts. Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening and evaluate performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, DBT screening examinations were collected from five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries between 2011 and 2018. Performance measures included abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate (FNR) and were calculated based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, fifth edition, and compared with concurrent BCSC DM screening examinations, previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database benchmarks, and expert opinion acceptable performance ranges. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance measures across radiologists (n = 84 or n = 73 depending on metric) and were presented as percentiles. Results A total of 896 101 women undergoing 2 301 766 screening examinations (458 175 DBT examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-111 years] and 1 843 591 DM examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-109 years]) were included in this study. DBT screening performance measures were as follows: AIR, 8.3% (95% CI: 7.5, 9.3); CDR per 1000 screens, 5.8 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.1); sensitivity, 87.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 89.4); specificity, 92.2% (95% CI: 91.3, 93.0); and FNR per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 1.0). When compared with BCSC DM screening examinations from the same time period and previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database performance benchmarks, all performance measures were higher for DBT except sensitivity and FNR, which were similar to concurrent and prior DM performance measures. The following proportions of radiologists achieved acceptable performance ranges with DBT: 97.6% for CDR, 91.8% for sensitivity, 75.0% for AIR, and 74.0% for specificity. Conclusion In U.S. community practice, large proportions of radiologists met acceptable performance ranges for screening performance metrics with DBT. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

ObjectiveWomen with serious mental illness are more likely to be diagnosed as having late-stage breast cancer than women without serious mental illness, suggesting a disparity in screening mammography. This study aimed to compare screening mammography rates in a nationally representative sample of Medicaid beneficiaries with and without schizophrenia.MethodsMedicaid Analytic eXtract files, 2007-2012, were used to identify a cohort of women ages 40-64 with schizophrenia who were eligible for Medicaid but not Medicare (N=87,572 in 2007 and N=114,341 in 2012) and a cohort without schizophrenia, frequency-matched by age, race-ethnicity, and state (N=97,003 in 2007 and N=126,461 in 2012). Annual screening mammography rates were calculated and adjusted for demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between beneficiary characteristics and screening mammography rates.ResultsIn 2012, 27.2% of women with schizophrenia completed screening mammography, compared with 26.8% of the control cohort. In the schizophrenia cohort, American Indian/Alaskan Native women had significantly lower odds of receiving mammography (OR=0.82, p=0.02) than White women, whereas Hispanic/Latina women had higher odds (OR=1.16, p

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) approaches facilitate risk prediction model development using high-dimensional predictors and higher-order interactions at the cost of model interpretability and transparency. We compared the relative predictive performance of statistical and ML models to guide modeling strategy selection for surveillance mammography outcomes in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). METHODS: We cross-validated seven risk prediction models for two surveillance outcomes, failure (breast cancer within 12 months of a negative surveillance mammogram) and benefit (surveillance-detected breast cancer). We included 9,447 mammograms (495 failures, 1,414 benefits, and 7,538 nonevents) from years 1996 to 2017 using a 1:4 matched case-control samples of women with PHBC in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We assessed model performance of conventional regression, regularized regressions (LASSO and elastic-net), and ML methods (random forests and gradient boosting machines) by evaluating their calibration and, among well-calibrated models, comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: LASSO and elastic-net consistently provided well-calibrated predicted risks for surveillance failure and benefit. The AUCs of LASSO and elastic-net were both 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.66) for surveillance failure and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.64-0.68) for surveillance benefit, the highest among well-calibrated models. CONCLUSIONS: For predicting breast cancer surveillance mammography outcomes, regularized regression outperformed other modeling approaches and balanced the trade-off between model flexibility and interpretability. IMPACT: Regularized regression may be preferred for developing risk prediction models in other contexts with rare outcomes, similar training sample sizes, and low-dimensional features.

BACKGROUND: By the end of 2022, nearly 20 million workers in the United States have gained paid-sick-leave coverage from mandates that require employers to provide benefits to qualified workers, including paid time off for the use of preventive services. Although the lack of paid-sick-leave coverage may hinder access to preventive care, current evidence is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about its relationship to cancer screening. METHODS: We examined the association between paid-sick-leave mandates and screening for breast and colorectal cancers by comparing changes in 12- and 24-month rates of colorectal-cancer screening and mammography between workers residing in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that have been affected by paid-sick-leave mandates (exposed MSAs) and workers residing in unexposed MSAs. The comparisons were conducted with the use of administrative medical-claims data for approximately 2 million private-sector employees from 2012 through 2019. RESULTS: Paid-sick-leave mandates were present in 61 MSAs in our sample. Screening rates were similar in the exposed and unexposed MSAs before mandate adoption. In the adjusted analysis, cancer-screening rates were higher among workers residing in exposed MSAs than among those in unexposed MSAs by 1.31 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 2.34) for 12-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.56 percentage points (95% CI, 0.33 to 2.79) for 24-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.22 percentage points (95% CI, -0.20 to 2.64) for 12-month mammography, and 2.07 percentage points (95% CI, 0.15 to 3.99) for 24-month mammography. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of private-sector workers in the United States, cancer-screening rates were higher among those residing in MSAs exposed to paid-sick-leave mandates than among those residing in unexposed MSAs. Our results suggest that a lack of paid-sick-leave coverage presents a barrier to cancer screening. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.).

PurposeThe aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation.MethodsA population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms.ResultsThe study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) may provide an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic exam in women with known or suspected breast cancer or as a screening exam in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Women with breast augmentation, either for oncologic or cosmetic reasons, may fall into this increased risk population and need safe and effective screening and diagnostic imaging tools. Here, we present our clinical practice data in order to demonstrate the feasibility of CEM in women with breast implants. An institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, retrospective review of our tertiary cancer centers database yielded 104 women with breast implants who underwent 198 CEM exams from November 2014 to March 2020. All 198/198 (100%) exams were successfully completed in 104 women. Exam indications included: 174/198 (88%) screening due to increased risk, 10/198 (5%) to evaluate a palpable abnormality, 9/198 (

BACKGROUND: Women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer are often advised to begin screening when they are 10 years younger than the age at which their relative was diagnosed. Evidence is lacking to determine how much earlier they should begin. METHODS: Using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data on screening mammograms from 1996 to 2016, the authors constructed a cohort of 306,147 women 30-59 years of age with information on first-degree family history of breast cancer and relatives age at diagnosis. The authors compared cumulative 5-year breast cancer incidence among women with and without a first-degree family history of breast by relatives age at diagnosis and by screening age. RESULTS: Among 306,147 women included in the study, approximately 11% reported a first-degree family history of breast cancer with 3885 breast cancer cases identified. Women reporting a relative diagnosed between 40 and 49 years and undergoing screening between ages 30 and 39 or 40 and 49 had similar 5-year cumulative incidences of breast cancer (respectively, 18.6/1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1, 25.7; 18.4/1000; 95% CI, 13.7, 23.5) as women without a family history undergoing screening between 50-59 years of age (18.0/1000; 95% CI, 17.0, 19.1). For relatives diagnosis age from 35 to 45 years of age, initiating screening 5-8 years before diagnosis age resulted in a 5-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer of 15.2/1000, that of an average 50-year-old woman. CONCLUSION: Women with a relative diagnosed at or before age 45 may wish to consider, in consultation with their provider, initiating screening 5-8 years earlier than their relatives diagnosis age.

Objective: Little is known about womens confidence in their breast cancer screening. We sought to characterize breast cancer screening confidence by imaging modality and clinically assessed breast density. Materials and Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional survey of women ages 40-74 years who received digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a normal screening exam in the prior year. The main outcome was womens confidence (Very, Somewhat, A little, Not at all) in their breast cancer screening detecting any cancer. Multivariable logistic regression identified correlates of being very confident in breast cancer screening by screening modality group: Group 1) DM vs. DBT and Group 2) DM or DBT alone vs. with supplemental MRI. Results: Overall, 2329 of 7439 (31.3%) invitees participated, with 30%-61% being very confident in their screening across modality and density subgroups. Having dense versus nondense breasts was associated with lower odds of being very confident (Group 1: odds ratio [OR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.79; Group 2: OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40-0.79). There were no differences by modality within Group 1, but for Group 2, women undergoing MRI had higher odds of being very confident (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.37). Other correlates of greater screening confidence were as follows: Group 1-being offered a screening test choice and cost not influencing modality received, and Group 2-decision satisfaction and worry. Conclusions: Women with dense breasts had lower screening confidence regardless of screening modality and those undergoing MRI had higher confidence regardless of density. The importance of informing women about screening options is underscored by observed associations between screening choice, decision satisfaction, and screening confidence. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980848.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve cancer detection and risk prediction during mammography screening, but radiologists preferences regarding its characteristics and implementation are unknown. PURPOSE: To quantify how different attributes of AI-based cancer detection and risk prediction tools affect radiologists intentions to use AI during screening mammography interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through qualitative interviews with radiologists, we identified five primary attributes for AI-based breast cancer detection and four for breast cancer risk prediction. We developed a discrete choice experiment based on these attributes and invited 150 US-based radiologists to participate. Each respondent made eight choices for each tool between three alternatives: two hypothetical AI-based tools versus screening without AI. We analyzed samplewide preferences using random parameters logit models and identified subgroups with latent class models. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 66; 44% response rate) were from six diverse practice settings across eight states. Radiologists were more interested in AI for cancer detection when sensitivity and specificity were balanced (94% sensitivity with

IntroductionDecision aids for breast cancer screening are increasingly being used by physicians, but the association between physician practice decision-aid use and mammography rates remains uncertain. Using national data, this study examines the association between practice-level decision-aid use and mammography use among older women.MethodsPhysician practice responses to the 2017/2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (n=1,236) were linked to 2016 and 2017 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary data from eligible beneficiaries (n=439,684) aged 65-74 years. In 2021, multivariable generalized linear models estimated the association of practice decision-aid use for breast cancer screening and advanced health information technology functions with mammography use, controlling for practice and beneficiary characteristics.ResultsOverall, 60.1% of eligible beneficiaries had a screening mammogram, and 37.3% of physician practices routinely used decision aids for breast cancer screening. In adjusted analyses, advanced health information technology functions (OR=1.19, p=0.04) were associated with mammography use, but practice use of decision aids was not (OR=0.95, p=0.21). Beneficiary clinical and socioeconomic characteristics, including race, comorbidities, Medicare and Medicaid eligibility, and median household income were more strongly associated with mammography use than practice-level decision-aid use or advanced health information technology functions.ConclusionsHealth information technology‒enabled automation of mammography reminders and other advanced health information technology functions may support mammography, whereas breast cancer decision aids may reduce patients' propensities to be screened through the alignment of their preferences and screening decision. More resources may be needed for decision aids to be routinely implemented to improve solicitation of patient preferences and targeting of mammography services.

Screening tests are widely recommended for the early detection of disease among asymptomatic individuals. While detecting disease at an earlier stage has the potential to improve outcomes, screening also has negative consequences, including false positive results which may lead to anxiety, unnecessary diagnostic procedures, and increased healthcare costs. In addition, multiple false positive results could discourage participating in subsequent screening rounds. Screening guidelines typically recommend repeated screening over a period of many years, but little prior research has investigated how often individuals receive multiple false positive test results. Estimating the cumulative risk of multiple false positive results over the course of multiple rounds of screening is challenging due to the presence of censoring and competing risks, which may depend on the false positive risk, screening round, and number of prior false positive results. To address the general challenge of estimating the cumulative risk of multiple false positive test results, we propose a nonhomogeneous multistate model to describe the screening process including competing events. We developed alternative approaches for estimating the cumulative risk of multiple false positive results using this multistate model based on existing estimators for the cumulative risk of a single false positive. We compared the performance of the newly proposed models through simulation studies and illustrate model performance using data on screening mammography from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Across most simulation scenarios, the multistate extension of a censoring bias model demonstrated lower bias compared to other approaches. In the context of screening mammography, we found that the cumulative risk of multiple false positive results is high. For instance, based on the censoring bias model, for a high-risk individual, the cumulative probability of at least two false positive mammography results after 10 rounds of annual screening is 40.4.

BackgroundUnderstanding the magnitude and variability of the radiation dose absorbed by the breast fibroglandular tissue during mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is of paramount importance to assess risks versus benefits. Although homogeneous breast models have been proposed and used for decades for this purpose, they do not accurately reflect the actual heterogeneous distribution of the fibroglandular tissue in the breast, leading to biases in the estimation of dose from these modalities.PurposeTo develop and validate a method to generate patient-derived, heterogeneous digital breast phantoms for breast dosimetry in mammography and DBT.MethodsThe proposed phantoms were developed starting from patient-based models of compressed breasts, generated for multiple thicknesses and representing the two standard views acquired in mammography and DBT, that is, cranio-caudal (CC) and medio-lateral-oblique (MLO). Internally, the breast phantoms were defined as consisting of an adipose/fibroglandular tissue mixture, with a nonspatially uniform relative concentration. The parenchyma distributions were obtained from a previously described model based on patient breast computed tomography data that underwent simulated compression. Following these distributions, phantoms with any glandular fraction (1%-100%) and breast thickness (12-125 mm) can be generated, for both views. The phantoms were validated, in terms of their accuracy for average normalized glandular dose (Dg N) estimation across samples of patient breasts, using 88 patient-specific phantoms involving actual patient distribution of the fibroglandular tissue in the breast, and compared to that obtained using a homogeneous model similar to those currently used for breast dosimetry.ResultsThe average Dg N estimated for the proposed phantoms was concordant with that absorbed by the patient-specific phantoms to within 5% (CC) and 4% (MLO). These Dg N estimates were over 30% lower than those estimated with the homogeneous models, which overestimated the average Dg N by 43% (CC), and 32% (MLO) compared to the patient-specific phantoms.ConclusionsThe developed phantoms can be used for dosimetry simulations to improve the accuracy of dose estimates in mammography and DBT.

BackgroundWe evaluate the construct validity of a proposed procedure for eliciting lay preferences among health care policy options, suited for structured surveys. It is illustrated with breast cancer screening, a domain in which people may have heterogeneous preferences.MethodsOur procedure applies behavioral decision research principles to eliciting preferences among policy options expressed in quantitative terms. Three-hundred women older than 18 y without a history of breast cancer were recruited through Amazon MTurk. Participants evaluated 4 screening options for each of 4 groups of women, with varying risk of breast cancer. Each option was characterized by estimates of 3 primary outcomes: breast cancer deaths, false alarms, and overdiagnosis resulting in unnecessary treatment of cancers that would not progress. These estimates were based on those currently being developed by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. For each risk group, participants stated how frequently they would wish to receive screening, if the predicted outcomes applied to them.ResultsA preregistered test found that preferences were robust enough to be unaffected by the order of introducing and displaying the outcomes. Other tests of construct validity also suggested that respondents generally understood the task and expressed consistent preferences. Those preferences were related to participants' age and mammography history but not to measures of their numeracy, subjective numeracy, or demographics. There was considerable heterogeneity in their preferences.ConclusionsMembers of the public can be engaged more fully in informing future screening guidelines if they evaluate the screening options characterized by the expected health outcomes expressed in quantitative terms. We offer and evaluate such a procedure, in terms of its construct validity with a diverse sample of women.HighlightsA novel survey method for eliciting lay preferences for breast cancer screening is proposed and evaluated in terms of its construct validity.Participants were generally insensitive to irrelevant task features (e.g., order of presentation) and sensitive to relevant ones (e.g., quantitative estimates of breast cancer risk, harms from screening).The proposed method elicits lay preferences in terms that can inform future screening guidelines, potentially improving communication between the public and policy makers.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically changed the delivery of breast cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of the pandemic on breast cancer screening, treatment, and reconstruction at a single institution in New York City. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the number of mammograms, lumpectomies, mastectomies, and breast reconstruction operations performed between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021. Outcomes analyzed included changes in mammography, oncologic surgery, and breast reconstruction surgery volume before, during and after the start of the pandemic. RESULTS: Mammography volume declined by 11% in March-May of 2020. Oncologic breast surgeries and reconstructive surgeries similarly declined by 6.8% and 11%, respectively, in 2020 compared with 2019, reaching their lowest levels in April 2020. The volume of all procedures increased during the summer of 2020. Mammography volumes in June and July 2020 were found to be at pre-COVID levels, and in October-December 2020 were 15% higher than in 2019. Oncologic breast surgeries saw a similar rebound in May 2020, with 24.6% more cases performed compared with May 2019. Breast reconstruction volumes increased, though changes in the types of reconstruction were noted. Oncoplastic closures were more common during the pandemic, while two-stage implant reconstruction and immediate autologous reconstruction decreased by 27% and 43%, respectively. All procedures are on track to increase in volume in 2021 compared to that in 2020. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic reduced the volume of breast cancer surveillance, surgical treatment, and reconstruction procedures. While it is reassuring that volumes have rebounded in 2021, efforts must be made to emphasize screening and treatment procedures in the face of subsequent surges, such as that recently attributable to the Delta and Omicron variants.

BackgroundWe evaluated differences in diagnostic mammography performance based on women's race/ethnicity.MethodsThis cohort study included 267,868 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate screening mammogram findings at 98 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 2005 and 2017. Mammogram assessments were recorded prospectively and breast cancers occurring within one year were ascertained. Performance statistics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each racial/ethnic group. Multivariable regression was used to control for personal characteristics and imaging facility.ResultsAmong non-Hispanic White (70%), non-Hispanic Black (13%), Asian/Pacific Islander (10%), and Hispanic (7%) women, the invasive cancer detection rate (iCDR, per 1,000 mammograms) and positive predictive value (PPV2) were highest among non-Hispanic White women (iCDR, 35.8; 95% CI, 35.0-36.7; PPV2, 27.8; 95% CI, 27.3-28.3) and lowest among Hispanic women (iCDR, 22.3; 95% CI, 20.2-24.6; PPV2, 19.4; 95% CI, 18.0-20.9). Short interval follow-up recommendations were most common among non-Hispanic Black women [(31.0%; 95% CI, 30.6%-31.5%) vs. other groups, range, 16.6%-23.6%]. False-positive biopsy recommendations were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 mammograms: 169.2; 95% CI, 164.8-173.7) vs. other groups, range, 126.5-136.1]. Some differences were explained by adjusting for receipt of diagnostic ultrasound or MRI for iCDR and imaging facility for short-interval follow-up. Other differences changed little after adjustment.ConclusionsDiagnostic mammography performance varied across racial/ethnic groups. Addressing characteristics related to imaging facility and access, rather than personal characteristics, may help reduce some of these disparities.ImpactDiagnostic mammography performance studies should include racially and ethnically diverse populations to provide an accurate view of the population-level effects.

BackgroundAmorphous calcifications noted on mammograms (i.e., small and indistinct calcifications that are difficult to characterize) are associated with high diagnostic uncertainty, often leading to biopsies. Yet, only 20% of biopsied amorphous calcifications are cancer. We present a quantitative approach for distinguishing between benign and actionable (high-risk and malignant) amorphous calcifications using a combination of local textures, global spatial relationships, and interpretable handcrafted expert features.MethodOur approach was trained and validated on a set of 168 2D full-field digital mammography exams (248 images) from 168 patients. Within these 248 images, we identified 276 image regions with segmented amorphous calcifications and a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis. A set of local (radiomic and region measurements) and global features (distribution and expert-defined) were extracted from each image. Local features were grouped using an unsupervised k-means clustering algorithm. All global features were concatenated with clustered local features and used to train a LightGBM classifier to distinguish benign from actionable cases.ResultsOn the held-out test set of 60 images, our approach achieved a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 35%, and a positive predictive value of 38% when the decision threshold was set to 0.4. Given that all of the images in our test set resulted in a recommendation of a biopsy, the use of our algorithm would have identified 15 images (25%) that were benign, potentially reducing the number of breast biopsies.ConclusionsQuantitative analysis of full-field digital mammograms can extract subtle shape, texture, and distribution features that may help to distinguish between benign and actionable amorphous calcifications.

BackgroundEstimating advanced breast cancer risk in women undergoing annual or biennial mammography could identify women who may benefit from less or more intensive screening. We developed an actionable model to predict cumulative 6-year advanced cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) risk according to screening interval.MethodsWe included 931 186 women aged 40-74 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium undergoing 2 542 382 annual (prior mammogram within 11-18 months) or 752 049 biennial (prior within 19-30 months) screening mammograms. The prediction model includes age, race and ethnicity, body mass index, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy subdivided by menopausal status and screening interval. We used fivefold cross-validation to internally validate model performance. We defined higher than 95th percentile as high risk (>0.658%), higher than 75th percentile to 95th or less percentile as intermediate risk (0.380%-0.658%), and 75th or less percentile as low to average risk (

ObjectiveWomen are increasingly informed about their breast density due to state density reporting laws. However, accuracy of personal breast density knowledge remains unclear. We compared self-reported with clinically assessed breast density and assessed knowledge of density implications and feelings about future screening.MethodsFrom December 2017 to January 2020, we surveyed women aged 40 to 74 years without prior breast cancer, with a normal screening mammogram in the prior year, and ≥1 recorded breast density measures in four Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries with density reporting laws. We measured agreement between self-reported and BI-RADS breast density categorized as "ever-dense" if heterogeneously or extremely dense within the past 5 years or "never-dense" otherwise, knowledge of dense breast implications, and feelings about future screening.ResultsSurvey participation was 28% (1,528 of 5,408), and 59% (896 of 1,528) of participants had ever-dense breasts. Concordance between self-report versus clinical density was 76% (677 of 896) among women with ever-dense breasts and 14% (89 of 632) among women with never-dense breasts, and 34% (217 of 632) with never-dense breasts reported being told they had dense breasts. Desire for supplemental screening was more frequent among those who reported having dense breasts 29% (256 of 893) or asked to imagine having dense breasts 30% (152 of 513) versus those reporting nondense breasts 15% (15 of 102) (P = .003, P = .002, respectively). Women with never-dense breasts had 6.3-fold higher odds (95% confidence interval:3.39-11.80) of accurate knowledge in states reporting density to all compared to states reporting only to women with dense breasts.DiscussionStandardized communications of breast density results to all women may increase density knowledge and are needed to support informed screening decisions.

BackgroundMammography screening can lead to overdiagnosis-that is, screen-detected breast cancer that would not have caused symptoms or signs in the remaining lifetime. There is no consensus about the frequency of breast cancer overdiagnosis.ObjectiveTo estimate the rate of breast cancer overdiagnosis in contemporary mammography practice accounting for the detection of nonprogressive cancer.DesignBayesian inference of the natural history of breast cancer using individual screening and diagnosis records, allowing for nonprogressive preclinical cancer. Combination of fitted natural history model with life-table data to predict the rate of overdiagnosis among screen-detected cancer under biennial screening.SettingBreast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities.ParticipantsWomen aged 50 to 74 years at first mammography screen between 2000 and 2018.MeasurementsScreening mammograms and screen-detected or interval breast cancer.ResultsThe cohort included 35 986 women, 82 677 mammograms, and 718 breast cancer diagnoses. Among all preclinical cancer cases, 4.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 0.1% to 14.8%) were estimated to be nonprogressive. In a program of biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years, 15.4% (UI, 9.4% to 26.5%) of screen-detected cancer cases were estimated to be overdiagnosed, with 6.1% (UI, 0.2% to 20.1%) due to detecting indolent preclinical cancer and 9.3% (UI, 5.5% to 13.5%) due to detecting progressive preclinical cancer in women who would have died of an unrelated cause before clinical diagnosis.LimitationsExclusion of women with first mammography screen outside BCSC.ConclusionOn the basis of an authoritative U.S. population data set, the analysis projected that among biennially screened women aged 50 to 74 years, about 1 in 7 cases of screen-detected cancer is overdiagnosed. This information clarifies the risk for breast cancer overdiagnosis in contemporary screening practice and should facilitate shared and informed decision making about mammography screening.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute.

IntroductionLimited evidence exists on the impact of age and comorbidity on biopsy rates and findings among older women.Materials and methodsWe used data from 170,657 women ages 66-94 enrolled in the United States Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). We estimated one-year rates of biopsy by type (any, fine-needle aspiration (FNA), core or surgical) and yield of the most invasive biopsy finding (benign, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer) by age and comorbidity. Statistical significance was assessed using Wald statistics comparing coefficients estimated from logistic regression models adjusted for age, comorbidity, BCSC registry, and interaction between age and comorbidity.ResultsOf 524,860 screening mammograms, 9830 biopsies were performed following 7930 exams (1.5%) within one year, specifically 5589 core biopsies (1.1%), 3422 (0.7%) surgical biopsies and 819 FNAs (0.2%). Biopsy rates per 1000 screens decreased with age (66-74:15.7, 95%CI:14.8-16.8), 75-84:14.5(13.5-15.6), 85-94:13.2(11.3,15.4), ptrend

BackgroundBreast arterial calcification (BAC), a common incidental finding in mammography, has been shown to be associated with angiographic coronary artery disease and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. We aimed to (1) examine the association of BAC presence and quantity with hard atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) and global CVD; (2) ascertain model calibration, discrimination and reclassification of ASCVD risk; (3) assess the joint effect of BAC presence and 10-year pooled cohorts equations risk on ASCVD.MethodsA cohort study of 5059 women aged 60-79 years recruited after attending mammography screening between October 2012 and February 2015 was conducted in a large health plan in Northern California, United States. BAC status (presence versus absence) and quantity (calcium mass mg) was determined using digital mammograms. Prespecified end points were incident hard ASCVD and a composite of global CVD.ResultsTwenty-six percent of women had BAC >0 mg. After a mean (SD) follow-up of 6.5 (1.6) years, we ascertained 155 (3.0%) ASCVD events and 427 (8.4%) global CVD events. In Cox regression adjusted for traditional CVD risk factors, BAC presence was associated with a 1.51 (95% CI, 1.08-2.11; P=0.02) increased hazard of ASCVD and a 1.23 (95% CI, 1.002-1.52; P=0.04) increased hazard of global CVD. While there was no evidence of dose-response association with ASCVD, a threshold effect was found for global CVD at very high BAC burden (95th percentile when BAC present). BAC status provided additional risk stratification of the pooled cohorts equations risk. We noted improvements in model calibration and reclassification of ASCVD: the overall net reclassification improvement was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.03-0.14; P=0.01) and the bias-corrected clinical-net reclassification improvement was 0.11 (95% CI, 0.01-0.22; P=0.04) after adding BAC status.ConclusionsOur results indicate that BAC has potential utility for primary CVD prevention and, therefore, support the notion that BAC ought to be considered a risk-enhancing factor for ASCVD among postmenopausal women.

BackgroundEarly initiation of breast cancer screening is recommended for high-risk women, including survivors of childhood cancer treated with chest radiation. Recent studies suggest that female survivors of childhood leukemia or sarcoma treated without chest radiation are also at elevated early onset breast cancer risk. However, the potential clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of early breast cancer screening among these women are uncertain.MethodsUsing data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we adapted 2 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network simulation models to reflect the elevated risks of breast cancer and competing mortality among leukemia and sarcoma survivors. Costs and utility weights were based on published studies and databases. Outcomes included breast cancer deaths averted, false-positive screening results, benign biopsies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsIn the absence of screening, the lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer among survivors was 6.8% to 7.0% across models. Early initiation of annual mammography with breast magnetic resonance imaging screening between ages 25 and 40 years would avert 52.6% to 64.3% of breast cancer deaths. When costs and quality-of-life impacts were considered, screening starting at age 40 years was the only strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained cost-effectiveness threshold ($27 680 to $44 380 per QALY gained across models).ConclusionsAmong survivors of childhood leukemia or sarcoma, early initiation of breast cancer screening at age 40 years may reduce breast cancer deaths by half and is cost-effective. These findings could help inform screening guidelines for survivors treated without chest radiation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the current state of science regarding independent external validation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for screening mammography. METHODS: A systematic review was performed across five databases (Embase, PubMed, IEEE Explore, Engineer Village, and arXiv) through December 10, 2020. Studies that used screening examinations from real-world settings to externally validate AI algorithms for mammographic cancer detection were included. The main outcome was diagnostic accuracy, defined by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Performance was also compared between radiologists and either stand-alone AI or combined radiologist and AI interpretation. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. RESULTS: After data extraction, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria (148,361 total patients). Most studies (77% [n = 10]) evaluated commercially available AI algorithms. Studies included retrospective reader studies (46% [n = 6]), retrospective simulation studies (38% [n = 5]), or both (15% [n = 2]). Across 5 studies comparing stand-alone AI with radiologists, 60% (n = 3) demonstrated improved accuracy with AI (AUC improvement range, 0.02-0.13). All 5 studies comparing combined radiologist and AI interpretation with radiologists alone demonstrated improved accuracy with AI (AUC improvement range, 0.028-0.115). Most studies had risk for bias or applicability concerns for patient selection (69% [n = 9]) and the reference standard (69% [n = 9]). Only two studies obtained ground-truth cancer outcomes through regional cancer registry linkage. CONCLUSIONS: To date, external validation efforts for AI screening mammographic technologies suggest small potential diagnostic accuracy improvements but have been retrospective in nature and suffer from risk for bias and applicability concerns.

Background Consistency in reporting Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density on mammograms is important because breast density is used for breast cancer risk assessment and is reported directly to women and clinicians to inform decisions about supplemental screening. Purpose To assess the consistency of BI-RADS density reporting between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) and evaluate density as a breast cancer risk factor when assessed using DM versus DBT. Materials and Methods The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing mammography with DM or DBT. This secondary analysis included women aged 40-79 years who underwent at least two screening mammography examinations less than 36 months apart. Percentage agreement and κ statistic were estimated for pairs of BI-RADS density assessments. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) of breast density as a risk factor for invasive breast cancer. Results A total of 403 326 pairs of mammograms from 342 149 women were evaluated. There were no significant differences in breast density assessment in pairs consisting of one DM and one DBT examination (57 516 of 74 729 [77%]; κ = 0.64), two DM examinations (238 678 of 301 743 [79%]; κ = 0.67), and two DBT examinations (20 763 of 26 854 [77%]; κ = 0.65). Results were similar when restricting the analyses to pairs read by the same radiologist. The breast cancer HRs for breast density were similar for DM and DBT (P = .45 for interaction). The HRs for density acquired using DM and DBT, respectively, were 0.55 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.63) and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.66) for almost entirely fat, 1.47 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.58) and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.82) for heterogeneously dense, and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.54, 1.93) and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.25, 3.36) for extremely dense breasts. Conclusion Radiologist reporting of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density obtained with digital breast tomosynthesis did not differ from that obtained with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

PurposeThe Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model is a widely used risk model that predicts 5- and 10-year risk of developing invasive breast cancer for healthy women aged 35-74 years. Women with high BCSC risk may also be at elevated risk to develop interval cancers, which present symptomatically in the year following a normal screening mammogram. We examined the association between high BCSC risk (defined as the top 2.5% by age) and breast cancers presenting as interval cancers.MethodsWe conducted a case-case analysis among women with breast cancer in which we compared the mode of detection and tumor characteristics of patients in the top 2.5% BCSC risk by age with age-matched (1:2) patients in the lower 97.5% risk. We constructed logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of presenting with interval cancers, and poor prognosis tumor features, between women from the top 2.5% and bottom 97.5% of BCSC risk.ResultsOur analysis included 113 breast cancer patients in the top 2.5% of risk for their age and 226 breast cancer patients in the lower 97.5% of risk. High-risk patients were more likely to have presented with an interval cancer within one year of a normal screening, OR 6.62 (95% CI 3.28-13.4, p

BackgroundThe detection of cancer in its early latent stages can improve patients' chances of recovery and thereby reduce the overall burden of the disease. Our objectives were to investigate factors (geographic accessibility and deprivation level) affecting mammography screening participation variation and to determine how much geographic variation in participation rates can be explained by spillover effects between adjacent areas, while controlling for covariates.MethodsMammography screening participation rates between 2015 and 2016 were calculated by census blocks (CB), for women aged 50-74 years, residing in Lyon metropolitan area. Global spatial autocorrelation tests were applied to identify the geographic variation of participation. Spatial regression models were used to incorporate spatial structure to estimate associations between mammography participation rate and the combined effect (geographic accessibility and deprivation level) adjusting for modes of travel and social cohesion.ResultsThe mammography participation rate was found to have a statistically significant and positive spatial correlation. The participation rate of one CB was significantly and positively associated with the participation rates of neighbouring CB. The participation was 53.2% in residential and rural areas and 46.6% in urban areas, p

PurposePreoperative breast MRI is used to evaluate for additional cancer and extent of disease for newly diagnosed breast cancer, yet benefits and harms of preoperative MRI are not well-documented. We examined whether preoperative MRI yields additional biopsy and cancer detection by extent of breast density.MethodsWe followed women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium with an incident breast cancer diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. We quantified breast biopsies and cancers detected within 6 months of diagnosis by preoperative breast MRI receipt, overall and by breast density, accounting for MRI selection bias using inverse probability weighted logistic regression.ResultsAmong 19,324 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, 28% had preoperative MRI, 11% additional biopsy, and 5% additional cancer detected. Four times as many women with preoperative MRI underwent additional biopsy compared to women without MRI (22.6% v. 5.1%). Additional biopsy rates with preoperative MRI increased with increasing breast density (27.4% for extremely dense compared to 16.2% for almost entirely fatty breasts). Rates of additional cancer detection were almost four times higher for women with v. without MRI (9.9% v. 2.6%). Conditional on additional biopsy, age-adjusted rates of additional cancer detection were lowest among women with extremely dense breasts, regardless of imaging modality (with MRI: 35.0%; 95% CI 27.0-43.0%; without MRI: 45.1%; 95% CI 32.6-57.5%).ConclusionFor women with dense breasts, preoperative MRI was associated with much higher biopsy rates, without concomitant higher cancer detection. Preoperative MRI may be considered for some women, but selecting women based on breast density is not supported by evidence.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980848; registered 2017.

BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Prior studies of screening mammography patterns by functional status in older women show inconsistent results. We used Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-Medicare linked data (1999-2014) to investigate the association of functional limitations with adherence to screening mammography in 145,478 women aged 66-74 years. Functional limitation was represented by a claims-based function-related indicator (FRI) score which incorporated 16 items reflecting functional status. Baseline adherence was defined as mammography utilization 9-30 months after the index screening mammography. Longitudinal adherence was examined among women adherent at baseline and defined as time from the index mammography to end of the first 30-month gap in mammography. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate baseline and longitudinal adherence, respectively. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age (66-70 vs. 71-74 years). Overall, 69.6% of participants had no substantial functional limitation (FRI score 0), 23.5% had some substantial limitations (FRI score 1), and 6.8% had serious limitations (FRI score ≥ 2). Mean age at baseline was 68.5 years (SD = 2.6), 85.3% of participants were white, and 77.1% were adherent to screening mammography at baseline. Women with a higher FRI score were more likely to be non-adherent at baseline (FRI ≥ 2 vs. 0: aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.06, 1.20, p-trend

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted breast cancer control through short-term declines in screening and delays in diagnosis and treatments. We projected the impact of COVID-19 on future breast cancer mortality between 2020 and 2030.MethodsThree established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models modeled reductions in mammography screening use, delays in symptomatic cancer diagnosis, and reduced use of chemotherapy for women with early-stage disease for the first 6 months of the pandemic with return to prepandemic patterns after that time. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect of key model parameters, including the duration of the pandemic impact.ResultsBy 2030, the models project 950 (model range = 860-1297) cumulative excess breast cancer deaths related to reduced screening, 1314 (model range = 266-1325) associated with delayed diagnosis of symptomatic cases, and 151 (model range = 146-207) associated with reduced chemotherapy use in women with hormone positive, early-stage cancer. Jointly, 2487 (model range = 1713-2575) excess breast cancer deaths were estimated, representing a 0.52% (model range = 0.36%-0.56%) cumulative increase over breast cancer deaths expected by 2030 in the absence of the pandemic's disruptions. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the breast cancer mortality impact would be approximately double if the modeled pandemic effects on screening, symptomatic diagnosis, and chemotherapy extended for 12 months.ConclusionsInitial pandemic-related disruptions in breast cancer care will have a small long-term cumulative impact on breast cancer mortality. Continued efforts to ensure prompt return to screening and minimize delays in evaluation of symptomatic women can largely mitigate the effects of the initial pandemic-associated disruptions.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted breast cancer screening and diagnostic imaging in the United States. We sought to evaluate how medical facilities prioritized breast imaging services during periods of reduced capacity or upon re-opening after closures. In fall 2020, we surveyed 77 breast imaging facilities within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in the United States. The survey ascertained the pandemic's impact on clinical practices during March-September 2020. Nearly all facilities (97%) reported closing or operating at reduced capacity at some point during this period. All facilities were open by August 2020, though 14% were still operating at reduced capacity in September 2020. During periods of re-opening or reduced capacity, 93% of facilities reported prioritizing diagnostic breast imaging over breast cancer screening. For diagnostic imaging, facilities prioritized based on rescheduling canceled appointments (89%), specific indication for diagnostic imaging (89%), patient demand (84%), individual characteristics and risk factors (77%), and time since last imaging examination (72%). For screening mammography, facilities prioritized based on rescheduled cancelations (96%), patient demand (83%), individual characteristics and risk factors (73%), and time since last mammogram (71%). For biopsy services, more than 90% of facilities reported prioritization based on rescheduling of canceled exams, patient demand, patient characteristics and risk factors and level of suspicion on imaging. The observed patterns from this large and geographically diverse sample of facilities in the United States indicate that multiple factors were commonly used to prioritize breast imaging services during periods of reduced capacity.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a near-total cessation of mammography services in the United States in mid-March 2020. It is unclear if screening and diagnostic mammography volumes have recovered to prepandemic levels and whether use has varied by women's characteristics.MethodsWe collected data on 461 083 screening mammograms and 112 207 diagnostic mammograms conducted during January 2019 through July 2020 at 62 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We compared monthly screening and diagnostic mammography volumes before and during the pandemic stratified by age, race and ethnicity, breast density, and family history of breast cancer.ResultsScreening and diagnostic mammography volumes in April 2020 were 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5% to 2.4%) and 21.4% (95% CI = 18.7% to 24.4%) of the April 2019 prepandemic volumes, respectively, but by July 2020 had rebounded to 89.7% (95% CI = 79.6% to 101.1%) and 101.6% (95% CI = 93.8% to 110.1%) of the July 2019 prepandemic volumes, respectively. The year-to-date cumulative volume of screening and diagnostic mammograms performed through July 2020 was 66.2% (95% CI = 60.3% to 72.6%) and 79.9% (95% CI = 75.4% to 84.6%), respectively, of year-to-date volume through July 2019. Screening mammography rebound was similar across age groups and by family history of breast cancer. Monthly screening mammography volume in July 2020 for Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian women reached 96.7% (95% CI = 88.1% to 106.1%), 92.9% (95% CI = 82.9% to 104.0%), 72.7% (95% CI = 56.5% to 93.6%), and 51.3% (95% CI = 39.7% to 66.2%) of the July 2019 prepandemic volume, respectively.ConclusionsDespite a strong overall rebound in mammography volume by July 2020, the rebound lagged among Asian and Hispanic women, and a substantial cumulative deficit in missed mammograms accumulated, which may have important health consequences.

Regions of high mammographic density (MD) in the breast are characterised by a proteoglycan (PG)-rich fibrous stroma, where PGs mediate aligned collagen fibrils to control tissue stiffness and hence the response to mechanical forces. Literature is accumulating to support the notion that mechanical stiffness may drive PG synthesis in the breast contributing to MD. We review emerging patterns in MD and other biological settings, of a positive feedback cycle of force promoting PG synthesis, such as in articular cartilage, due to increased pressure on weight bearing joints. Furthermore, we present evidence to suggest a pro-tumorigenic effect of increased mechanical force on epithelial cells in contexts where PG-mediated, aligned collagen fibrous tissue abounds, with implications for breast cancer development attributable to high MD. Finally, we summarise means through which this positive feedback mechanism of PG synthesis may be intercepted to reduce mechanical force within tissues and thus reduce disease burden.

BACKGROUND. Targeted ultrasound (US) can be performed to characterize and potentially biopsy areas of enhancement detected on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of targeted US in predicting malignancy of lesions with indeterminate or suspicious enhancement on CEM. METHODS. One thousand consecutive CEM examinations with same-day targeted breast US at one institution between October 2013 and May 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients with indeterminate or suspicious enhancement detected on CEM that underwent US evaluation were included. Patients with palpable or symptomatic lesions, those with suspicious findings on low-energy mammograms or images obtained with another modality, and those with less than 1 year of follow-up were excluded. Medical records, imaging, and pathology data were reviewed. Histopathologic analysis was used as the reference standard for biopsied lesions, and follow-up imaging was used for unbiopsied lesions. Associations between pathologic diagnosis, presence of a US correlate, and lesion characteristics were assessed by Fisher exact, chi-square, and Wilcox-on rank sum tests. RESULTS. Among 153 enhancing lesions detected on CEM in 144 patients, 47 (31%) had a US correlate. The frequency of a correlate between CEM and US was significantly higher among enhancing masses (28/43 [65%]) than among lesions exhibiting nonmass enhancement (19/110 [17%]) (p < .001). The likelihood of malignancy was significantly greater among lesions with a US correlate (12/47 [26%]) than among those without a US correlate (11/106 [10%]) (p = .03), and among mass lesions (11/43 [26%]) than among nonmass lesions (12/110 [11%]) (p = .04). The PPV of US-guided biopsy after CEM-directed US was 32%. CONCLUSION. Enhancing CEM-detected lesions that have a US correlate are more likely to be malignant and can be evaluated with US-guided biopsy to obviate additional breast MRI. CLINICAL IMPACT. CEM-directed US of enhancing lesions is useful given that lesions with a US correlate are more likely to be malignant and can be used as targets for US-guided biopsy until a CEM biopsy system becomes commercially available.