Search

The association of progesterone/progesterone metabolites with elevated mammographic breast density (MBD) and delayed age-related terminal duct lobular unit (TDLU) involution, strong breast cancer risk factors, has received limited attention. Using a reliable liquid chromatography-tandem mass-spectrometry assay, we quantified serum progesterone/progesterone metabolites and explored cross-sectional relationships with MBD and TDLU involution among women, ages 40-65, undergoing diagnostic breast biopsy. Quantitative MBD measures were estimated in pre-biopsy digital mammograms. TDLU involution was quantified in diagnostic biopsies. Adjusted partial correlations and trends across MBD/TDLU categories were calculated. Pregnenolone was positively associated with percent MBD-area (MBD-A, rho: 0.30; p-trend = 0.01) among premenopausal luteal phase women. Progesterone tended to be positively associated with percent MBD-A among luteal phase (rho: 0.26; p-trend = 0.07) and postmenopausal (rho: 0.17; p-trend = 0.04) women. Consistent with experimental data, implicating an elevated 5α-pregnanes/3α-dihydroprogesterone (5αP/3αHP) metabolite ratio in breast cancer, higher 5αP/3αHP was associated with elevated percent MBD-A among luteal phase (rho: 0.29; p-trend = 0.08), but not postmenopausal women. This exploratory analysis provided some evidence that endogenous progesterone and progesterone metabolites might be correlated with MBD, a strong breast cancer risk factor, in both pre- and postmenopausal women undergoing breast biopsy. Additional studies are needed to understand the role of progesterone/progesterone metabolites in breast tissue composition and breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density (MD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor that reflects fibroglandular and adipose tissue composition, but its biologic underpinnings are poorly understood. Insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (IGFBPs) are markers that may be associated with MD given their hypothesized role in breast carcinogenesis. IGFBPs sequester IGF-I, limiting its bioavailability. Prior studies have found positive associations between circulating IGF-I and the IGF-I:IGFBP-3 ratio and breast cancer risk. We evaluated the associations of IGF-I, IGFBP-3, and six other IGFBPs with MD. METHODS: Serum IGF measures were quantified in 296 women, ages 40-65, undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy. Volumetric density measures (MD-V) were assessed in pre-biopsy digital mammograms using single X-ray absorptiometry. Area density measures (MD-A) were estimated by computer-assisted thresholding software. Age, body mass index (BMI), and BMI2-adjusted linear regression models were used to examine associations of serum IGF measures with MD. Effect modification by BMI was also assessed. RESULTS: IGF-I and IGFBP-3 were not strongly associated with MD after BMI adjustment. In multivariable analyses among premenopausal women, IGFBP-2 was positively associated with both percent MD-V (β = 1.49, p value = 0.02) and MD-A (β = 1.55, p value = 0.05). Among postmenopausal women, positive relationships between IGFBP-2 and percent MD-V (β = 2.04, p = 0.003) were observed; the positive associations between IGFBP-2 and percent MD-V were stronger among lean women (BMI

Rationale and objectivesEvidence is inconsistent about whether radiologists' interpretive performance on a screening mammography test set reflects their performance in clinical practice. This study aimed to estimate the correlation between test set and clinical performance and determine if the correlation is influenced by cancer prevalence or lesion difficulty in the test set.Materials and methodsThis institutional review board-approved study randomized 83 radiologists from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries to assess one of four test sets of 109 screening mammograms each; 48 radiologists completed a fifth test set of 110 mammograms 2 years later. Test sets differed in number of cancer cases and difficulty of lesion detection. Test set sensitivity and specificity were estimated using woman-level and breast-level recall with cancer status and expert opinion as gold standards. Clinical performance was estimated using women-level recall with cancer status as the gold standard. Spearman rank correlations between test set and clinical performance with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated.ResultsFor test sets with fewer cancers (N = 15) that were more difficult to detect, correlations were weak to moderate for sensitivity (woman level = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.16, 0.69; breast level = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.61) and weak for specificity (0.24, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.45) relative to expert recall. Correlations for test sets with more cancers (N = 30) were close to 0 and not statistically significant.ConclusionsCorrelations between screening performance on a test set and performance in clinical practice are not strong. Test set performance more accurately reflects performance in clinical practice if cancer prevalence is low and lesions are challenging to detect.

PurposeThis study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography.Materials and methodsWe evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance.ResultsA moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (rspearman=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (rspearman=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P

BackgroundCurrent data on the pathologic diagnoses of breast biopsy after mammography can inform patients, clinicians, and researchers about important population trends.MethodsBreast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data on 4,020,140 mammograms between 1996 and 2008 were linked to 76,567 pathology specimens. Trends in diagnoses in biopsies by time and risk factors (patient age, breast density, and family history of breast cancer) were examined for screening and diagnostic mammography (performed for a breast symptom or short-interval follow-up).ResultsOf the total mammograms, 88.5% were screening and 11.5% diagnostic; 1.2% of screening and 6.8% of diagnostic mammograms were followed by biopsies. The frequency of biopsies over time was stable after screening mammograms, but increased after diagnostic mammograms. For biopsies obtained after screening, frequencies of invasive carcinoma increased over time for women ages 40-49 and 60-69, Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) increased for those ages 40-69, whereas benign diagnoses decreased for all ages. No trends in pathology diagnoses were found following diagnostic mammograms. Dense breast tissue was associated with high-risk lesions and DCIS relative to nondense breast tissue. Family history of breast cancer was associated with DCIS and invasive cancer.ConclusionsAlthough the frequency of breast biopsy after screening mammography has not changed over time, the percentages of biopsies with DCIS and invasive cancer diagnoses have increased. Among biopsies following mammography, women with dense breasts or family history of breast cancer were more likely to have high-risk lesions or invasive cancer. These findings are relevant to breast cancer screening and diagnostic practices.

Physician attributes, job satisfaction and confidence in clinical skills are associated with enhanced performance and better patient outcomes. We surveyed 252 pathologists to evaluate associations between enjoyment of breast pathology, demographic/clinical characteristics and diagnostic performance. Diagnostic performance was determined by comparing pathologist assessments of a set of 60 cases with consensus assessments of the same cases made by a panel of experienced pathologists. Eighty-three percent of study participants reported enjoying breast pathology. Pathologists who enjoy breast interpretation were more likely to review ≥10 cases/week (p = 0.003), report breast interpretation expertise (p = 0.013) and have high levels of confidence interpreting breast pathology (p < 0.001). These pathologists were less likely to report that the field was challenging (p < 0.001) and that breast cases make them more nervous than other types of pathology (p < 0.001). Enjoyment was not associated with diagnostic performance. Millions of women undergo breast biopsy annually, thus it is reassuring that although nearly a fifth of practicing pathologists who interpret breast tissue report not enjoying the field, precision is not impacted.

PurposeTo compare the cancer detection rate and stage after benign stereotactic or ultrasonography (US)-guided core breast biopsy between patients with short-interval follow-up (SIFU) and those who return to annual screening.Materials and methodsThe Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registry and the BCSC Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active and passive consent processes and a waiver of consent. All procedures were HIPAA compliant. BCSC data for 1994-2010 were used to compare ipsilateral breast cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics for diagnoses within 3 months after SIFU (3-8 months) versus return to annual screening (RTAS) mammography (9-18 months) after receiving a benign pathology result from image-guided breast biopsy.ResultsIn total, 17 631 biopsies with benign findings were identified with SIFU or RTAS imaging. In the SIFU group, 27 ipsilateral breast cancers were diagnosed in 10 715 mammographic examinations (2.5 cancers per 1000 examinations) compared with 16 cancers in 6916 mammographic examinations in the RTAS group (2.3 cancers per 1000 examinations) (P = .88). Sixteen cancers after SIFU (59%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%, 78%) were invasive versus 12 after RTAS (75%; 95% CI: 48%, 93%). The invasive cancer rate was 1.5 per 1000 examinations after SIFU (95% CI: 0.9, 2.4) and 1.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 0.9, 3.0) after RTAS (P = .70). Among invasive cancers, 25% were late stage (stage 2B, 3, or 4) in the SIFU group (95% CI: 7%, 52%) versus 27% in the RTAS group (95% CI: 6%, 61%). Positive lymph nodes were found in seven (44%; 95% CI: 20%, 70%) invasive cancers after SIFU and in three (25%; 95% CI: 5%, 57%) invasive cancers after RTAS.ConclusionSimilar rates of cancer detection were found between SIFU and RTAS after benign breast biopsy with no significant differences in stage, tumor size, or nodal status, although the present study was limited by sample size. These findings suggest that patients with benign radiologic-pathologic-concordant percutaneous breast biopsy results could return to annual screening.

PurposeTo examine radiologists' screening performance in relation to the number of diagnostic work-ups performed after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography by the same radiologist or by different radiologists.Materials and methodsIn an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, the authors linked 651 671 screening mammograms interpreted from 2002 to 2006 by 96 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to cancer registries (standard of reference) to evaluate the performance of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and cancer detection rate [ CDR cancer detection rate ]). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the volume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image was the same radiologist who had interpreted the screening image, and "any" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image may or may not have been the radiologist who interpreted the screening image) and screening performance and whether the association between total annual volume and performance differed according to the volume of diagnostic work-up.ResultsAnnually, 38% of radiologists performed the diagnostic work-up for 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39% performed the work-up for more than 50. For the work-up of recalled screening mammograms from any radiologist, 24% of radiologists performed the work-up for 0-50 mammograms, 32% performed the work-up for 51-125, and 44% performed the work-up for more than 125. With increasing numbers of radiologist work-ups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR false-positive rate (P = .004), and CDR cancer detection rate (P < .001) of screening mammography increased, yielding a stepped increase in women recalled per cancer detected from 17.4 for 25 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms. Increases in work-ups for any radiologist yielded significant increases in FPR false-positive rate (P = .011) and CDR cancer detection rate (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR false-positive rate , sensitivity, and CDR cancer detection rate at all annual interpretive volumes.ConclusionThese findings support the hypothesis that radiologists may improve their screening performance by performing the diagnostic work-up for their own recalled screening mammograms and directly receiving feedback afforded by means of the outcomes associated with their initial decision to recall. Arranging for radiologists to work up a minimum number of their own recalled cases could improve screening performance but would need systems to facilitate this workflow.

Screening mammography utilization in Vermont has declined since 2009 during a time of changing screening guidelines and increased interest in personalized screening regimens. This study evaluates whether the breast cancer risk distribution of the state's screened population changed during the observed decline. We examined the breast cancer risk distribution among screened women between 2001 and 2012 using data from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System. We estimated each screened woman's 5-year risk of breast cancer using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk calculator. Annual screening counts by risk group were normalized and age-adjusted to the Vermont female population by direct standardization. The normalized rate of low-risk (5-year breast cancer risk of

ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to conduct a randomized controlled trial of educational interventions that were created to improve performance of screening mammography interpretation.Materials and methodsWe randomly assigned physicians who interpret mammography to one of three groups: self-paced DVD, live expert-led educational seminar, or control. The DVD and seminar interventions used mammography cases of varying difficulty and provided associated teaching points. Interpretive performance was compared using a pretest-posttest design. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated relative to two outcomes: cancer status and consensus of three experts about recall. The performance measures for each group were compared using logistic regression adjusting for pretest performance.ResultsOne hundred two radiologists completed all aspects of the trial. After adjustment for preintervention performance, the odds of improved sensitivity for correctly identifying a lesion relative to expert recall were 1.34 times higher for DVD participants than for control subjects (95% CI, 1.00-1.81; p = 0.050). The odds of an improved PPV for correctly identifying a lesion relative to both expert recall (odds ratio [OR] = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.24-3.05; p = 0.004) and cancer status (OR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.01-3.23; p = 0.045) were significantly improved for DVD participants compared with control subjects, with no significant change in specificity. For the seminar group, specificity was significantly lower than the control group (OR relative to expert recall = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; p = 0.048; OR relative to cancer status = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95; p = 0.015).ConclusionIn this randomized controlled trial, the DVD educational intervention resulted in a significant improvement in screening mammography interpretive performance on a test set, which could translate into improved interpretative performance in clinical practice.

ImportanceBreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for breast cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and surveillance. However, we lack data on national patterns of breast MRI use in community practice.ObjectiveTo describe patterns of breast MRI use in US community practice during the period 2005 through 2009.Design, setting, and participantsObservational cohort study using data collected from 2005 through 2009 on breast MRI and mammography from 5 national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Data included 8931 breast MRI examinations and 1,288,924 screening mammograms from women aged 18 to 79 years.Main outcomes and measuresWe calculated the rate of breast MRI examinations per 1000 women with breast imaging within the same year and described the clinical indications for the breast MRI examinations by year and age. We compared women screened with breast MRI to women screened with mammography alone for patient characteristics and lifetime breast cancer risk.ResultsThe overall rate of breast MRI from 2005 through 2009 nearly tripled from 4.2 to 11.5 examinations per 1000 women, with the most rapid increase from 2005 to 2007 (P = .02). The most common clinical indication was diagnostic evaluation (40.3%), followed by screening (31.7%). Compared with women who received screening mammography alone, women who underwent screening breast MRI were more likely to be younger than 50 years, white non-Hispanic, and nulliparous and to have a personal history of breast cancer, a family history of breast cancer, and extremely dense breast tissue (all P < .001). The proportion of women screened using breast MRI at high lifetime risk for breast cancer (>20%) increased during the study period from 9% in 2005 to 29% in 2009.Conclusions and relevanceUse of breast MRI for screening in high-risk women is increasing. However, our findings suggest that there is a need to improve appropriate use, including among women who may benefit from screening breast MRI.

BackgroundBiennial screening mammography retains most of the benefits of annual breast cancer screening with reduced harms. Whether screening guidelines based on race/ethnicity and age would be more effective than age-based guidelines is unknown.MethodsMammography data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were linked to pathology and tumor databases. The authors identified women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent annual, biennial, or triennial screening mammography between 1994 and 2008. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of adverse tumor characteristics among 14,396 incident breast cancer cases and 10-year cumulative risks of false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation among 1,276,312 noncases.ResultsNo increased risk of adverse tumor characteristics associated with biennial versus annual screening were noted in white women, black women, Hispanic women aged 40 to 49 years, or Asian women aged 50 to 74 years. Hispanic women aged 50 to 74 years who screened biennially versus annually were found to have an increased risk of late-stage disease (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5) and large tumors (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Asian women aged 40 to 49 years who underwent biennial screening had an elevated risk of positive lymph nodes (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.1). No elevated risks were associated with triennial versus biennial screening. Cumulative false-positive risks decreased markedly with a longer screening interval.ConclusionsThe authors found limited evidence of elevated risks of adverse tumor characteristics with biennial versus annual screening, whereas cumulative false-positive risks were lower. However, elevated risks of late-stage disease in Hispanic women and lymph node-positive disease in younger Asian women who screened less often than annually warrant consideration and replication.

PurposeTo describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.MethodsWe collected recruitment, consent, and intervention-completion information as part of a large study involving radiologists in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vermont. Consenting radiologists were randomized to receive either a 1-day live, expert-led educational session; to receive a self-paced DVD with similar content; or to a control group (delayed intervention). The impact of the interventions was assessed using a preintervention-postintervention test set design. All activities were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant.ResultsOf 403 eligible radiologists, 151 of 403 (37.5%) consented to participate in the trial and 119 of 151 (78.8%) completed the preintervention test set, leaving 119 available for randomization to one of the two intervention groups or to controls. Female radiologists were more likely than male radiologists to consent to and complete the study (P = .03). Consenting radiologists who completed all study activities were more likely to have been interpreting mammography for 10 years or less compared to radiologists who consented and did not complete all study activities or did not consent at all. The live intervention group was more likely to report their intent to change their clinical practice as a result of the intervention compared to those who received the DVD (50% versus 17.6%, P = .02). The majority of participants in both interventions groups felt the interventions were a useful way to receive CME mammography credits.ConclusionsCommunity radiologists found interactive interventions designed to improve interpretative mammography performance acceptable and useful for clinical practice. This suggests CME credits for radiologists should, in part, be for examining practice skills.

BackgroundControversy remains regarding the frequency of screening mammography. Women with different risks for developing breast cancer because of body mass index (BMI) may benefit from tailored recommendations.ObjectiveTo determine the impact of mammography screening interval for women who are normal weight (BMI < 25), overweight (BMI 25-29.9), or obese (BMI ≥ 30), stratified by menopausal status.DesignTwo cohorts selected from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Patient and mammography data were linked to pathology databases and tumor registries.ParticipantsThe cohort included 4,432 women aged 40-74 with breast cancer; the false-positive analysis included a cohort of 553,343 women aged 40-74 without breast cancer.Main measuresStage, tumor size and lymph node status by BMI and screening interval (biennial vs. annual). Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy by BMI and screening interval. Analyses were stratified by menopausal status.Key resultsPremenopausal obese women undergoing biennial screening had a non-significantly increased odds of a tumor size > 20 mm relative to annual screeners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.997 to 4.30). Across all BMI categories from normal to obese, postmenopausal women with breast cancer did not present with higher stage, larger tumor size or node positive tumors if they received biennial rather than annual screening. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendations were more common among annually screened women.ConclusionThe only negative outcome identified for biennial vs. annual screening was a larger tumor size (> 20 mm) among obese premenopausal women. Since annual mammography does not improve stage at diagnosis compared to biennial screening and false-positive recall/biopsy rates are higher with annual screening, women and their primary care providers should weigh the harms and benefits when deciding on annual versus biennial screening.

Rationale and objectivesTest sets for assessing and improving radiologic image interpretation have been used for decades and typically evaluate performance relative to gold standard interpretations by experts. To assess test sets for screening mammography, a gold standard for whether a woman should be recalled for additional workup is needed, given that interval cancers may be occult on mammography and some findings ultimately determined to be benign require additional imaging to determine if biopsy is warranted. Using experts to set a gold standard assumes little variation occurs in their interpretations, but this has not been explicitly studied in mammography.Materials and methodsUsing digitized films from 314 screening mammography exams (n = 143 cancer cases) performed in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, we evaluated interpretive agreement among three expert radiologists who independently assessed whether each examination should be recalled, and the lesion location, finding type (mass, calcification, asymmetric density, or architectural distortion), and interpretive difficulty in the recalled images.ResultsAgreement among the three expert pairs for recall/no recall was higher for cancer cases (mean 74.3 ± 6.5) than for noncancers (mean 62.6 ± 7.1). Complete agreement on recall, lesion location, finding type and difficulty ranged from 36.4% to 42.0% for cancer cases and from 43.9% to 65.6% for noncancer cases. Two of three experts agreed on recall and lesion location for 95.1% of cancer cases and 91.8% of noncancer cases, but all three experts agreed on only 55.2% of cancer cases and 42.1% of noncancer cases.ConclusionVariability in expert interpretive is notable. A minimum of three independent experts combined with a consensus should be used for establishing any gold standard interpretation for test sets, especially for noncancer cases.

ImportanceControversy exists about the frequency women should undergo screening mammography and whether screening interval should vary according to risk factors beyond age.ObjectiveTo compare the benefits and harms of screening mammography frequencies according to age, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use.DesignProspective cohort.SettingData collected January 1994 to December 2008 from mammography facilities in community practice that participate in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) mammography registries.ParticipantsData were collected prospectively on 11,474 women with breast cancer and 922,624 without breast cancer who underwent mammography at facilities that participate in the BCSC.Main outcomes and measuresWe used logistic regression to calculate the odds of advanced stage (IIb, III, or IV) and large tumors (>20 mm in diameter) and 10-year cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result by screening frequency, age, breast density, and HT use. The main predictor was screening mammography interval.ResultsMammography biennially vs annually for women aged 50 to 74 years does not increase risk of tumors with advanced stage or large size regardless of women's breast density or HT use. Among women aged 40 to 49 years with extremely dense breasts, biennial mammography vs annual is associated with increased risk of advanced-stage cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.06-3.39) and large tumors (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.37-4.18). Cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result was high among women undergoing annual mammography with extremely dense breasts who were either aged 40 to 49 years (65.5%) or used estrogen plus progestogen (65.8%) and was lower among women aged 50 to 74 years who underwent biennial or triennial mammography with scattered fibroglandular densities (30.7% and 21.9%, respectively) or fatty breasts (17.4% and 12.1%, respectively).Conclusions and relevanceWomen aged 50 to 74 years, even those with high breast density or HT use, who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of false-positive results than those who undergo annual mammography. When deciding whether to undergo mammography, women aged 40 to 49 years who have extremely dense breasts should be informed that annual mammography may minimize their risk of advanced-stage disease but the cumulative risk of false-positive results is high.

Background Uncertainty exists about the appropriate use of screening mammography among older women because comorbid illnesses may diminish the benefit of screening. We examined the risk of adverse tumor characteristics and false positive rates according to screening interval, age, and comorbidity. Methods From January 1999 to December 2006, data were collected prospectively on 2993 older women with breast cancer and 137 949 older women without breast cancer who underwent mammography at facilities that participated in a data linkage between the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and Medicare claims. Women were aged 66 to 89 years at study entry to allow for measurement of 1 year of preexisting illnesses. We used logistic regression analyses to calculate the odds of advanced (IIb, III, IV) stage, large (>20 millimeters) tumors, and 10-year cumulative probability of false-positive mammography by screening frequency (1 vs 2 years), age, and comorbidity score. The comorbidity score was derived using the Klabunde approximation of the Charlson score. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Adverse tumor characteristics did not differ statistically significantly by comorbidity, age, or interval. Cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result was higher among annual screeners than biennial screeners irrespective of comorbidity: 48.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 46.1% to 49.9%) of annual screeners aged 66 to 74 years had a false-positive result compared with 29.0% (95% CI = 28.1% to 29.9%) of biennial screeners. Conclusion Women aged 66 to 89 years who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of a false-positive recommendation than annual screeners, regardless of comorbidity.

PurposeTo test the hypothesis that American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories for breast density reported by radiologists are lower when digital mammography is used than those reported when film-screen (FS) mammography is used.Materials and methodsThis study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Demographic data, risk factors, and BI-RADS breast density categories were collected from five mammography registries that were part of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Active, passive, or waiver of consent was obtained for all participants. Women aged 40 years and older who underwent at least two screening mammographic examinations less than 36 months apart between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2009, were included. Women with prior breast cancer, augmentation, or use of agents known to affect density were excluded. The main sample included 89 639 women with both FS and digital mammograms. The comparison group included 259 046 women with two FS mammograms and 87 066 women with two digital mammograms. BI-RADS density was cross-tabulated according to the order in which the two types of mammogram were acquired and by the first versus second interpretation.ResultsRegardless of acquisition method, the percentage of women with a change in density from one reading to the next was similar. Breast density was lower in 19.8% of the women who underwent FS before digital mammography and 17.1% of those who underwent digital before FS mammography. Similarly, lower density classifications were reported on the basis of the second mammographic examination regardless of acquisition method (15.8%-19.8%). The percentage of agreement between density readings was similar regardless of mammographic types paired (67.3%-71.0%).ConclusionThe study results showed no difference in reported BI-RADS breast density categories according to acquisition method. Reported BI-RADS density categories may be useful in the development of breast cancer risk models in which FS, digital, or both acquisition methods are used.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess agreement of mammographic interpretations by community radiologists with consensus interpretations of an expert radiology panel to inform approaches that improve mammographic performance.MethodsFrom 6 mammographic registries, 119 community-based radiologists were recruited to assess 1 of 4 randomly assigned test sets of 109 screening mammograms with comparison studies for no recall or recall, giving the most significant finding type (mass, calcifications, asymmetric density, or architectural distortion) and location. The mean proportion of agreement with an expert radiology panel was calculated by cancer status, finding type, and difficulty level of identifying the finding at the patient, breast, and lesion level. Concordance in finding type between study radiologists and the expert panel was also examined. For each finding type, the proportion of unnecessary recalls, defined as study radiologist recalls that were not expert panel recalls, was determined.ResultsRecall agreement was 100% for masses and for examinations with obvious findings in both cancer and noncancer cases. Among cancer cases, recall agreement was lower for lesions that were subtle (50%) or asymmetric (60%). Subtle noncancer findings and benign calcifications showed 33% agreement for recall. Agreement for finding responsible for recall was low, especially for architectural distortions (43%) and asymmetric densities (40%). Most unnecessary recalls (51%) were asymmetric densities.ConclusionsAgreement in mammographic interpretation was low for asymmetric densities and architectural distortions. Training focused on these interpretations could improve the accuracy of mammography and reduce unnecessary recalls.

Rationale and objectivesThe aim of this study was to describe the impact of a tailored Web-based educational program designed to reduce excessive screening mammography recall.Materials and methodsRadiologists enrolled in one of four mammography registries in the United States were invited to take part and were randomly assigned to receive the intervention or to serve as controls. The controls were offered the intervention at the end of the study, and data collection included an assessment of their clinical practice as well. The intervention provided each radiologist with individual audit data for his or her sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate compared to national benchmarks and peer comparisons for the same measures; profiled breast cancer risk in each radiologist's respective patient populations to illustrate how low breast cancer risk is in population-based settings; and evaluated the possible impact of medical malpractice concerns on recall rates. Participants' recall rates from actual practice were evaluated for three time periods: the 9 months before the intervention was delivered to the intervention group (baseline period), the 9 months between the intervention and control groups (T1), and the 9 months after completion of the intervention by the controls (T2). Logistic regression models examining the probability that a mammogram was recalled included indication of intervention versus control and time period (baseline, T1, and T2). Interactions between the groups and time period were also included to determine if the association between time period and the probability of a positive result differed across groups.ResultsThirty-one radiologists who completed the continuing medical education intervention were included in the adjusted model comparing radiologists in the intervention group (n = 22) to radiologists who completed the intervention in the control group (n = 9). At T1, the intervention group had 12% higher odds of positive mammographic results compared to the controls, after controlling for baseline (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.27; P = .0569). At T2, a similar association was found, but it was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.25). No associations were found among radiologists in the control group when comparing those who completed the continuing medical education intervention (n = 9) to those who did not (n = 10). In addition, no associations were found between time period and recall rate among radiologists who set realistic goals.ConclusionsThis study resulted in a null effect, which may indicate that a single 1-hour intervention is not adequate to change excessive recall among radiologists who undertook the intervention being tested.

BackgroundComorbidities have been suggested influencing mammography use and breast cancer stage at diagnosis. We compared mammography use, and overall and advanced-stage breast cancer rates, among female Medicare beneficiaries with different levels of comorbidity.MethodsWe used linked Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and Medicare claims data from 1998 through 2006 to ascertain comorbidities among 149,045 female Medicare beneficiaries ages 67 and older who had mammography. We defined comorbidities as either "unstable" (life-threatening or difficult to control) or "stable" (age-related with potential to affect daily activity) on the basis of claims within 2 years before each mammogram.ResultsHaving undergone two mammograms within 30 months was more common in women with stable comorbidities (86%) than in those with unstable (80.3%) or no (80.9%) comorbidities. Overall rates of advanced-stage breast cancer were lower among women with no comorbidities [0.5 per 1,000 mammograms, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.3-0.8] than among those with stable comorbidities (0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.9; P = 0.065 compared with no comorbidities) or unstable comorbidities (1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3; P = 0.002 compared with no comorbidities). Among women having undergone two mammograms within 4 to 18 months, those with unstable and stable comorbidities had significantly higher advanced cancer rates than those with no comorbidities (P = 0.004 and P = 0.03, respectively).ConclusionsComorbidities were associated with more frequent use of mammography but also higher risk of advanced-stage disease at diagnosis among the subset of women who had the most frequent use of mammography.ImpactFuture studies need to examine whether specific comorbidities affect clinical progression of breast cancer.

BackgroundThe news media facilitated the rapid dissemination of the findings from the estrogen plus progestin therapy arm of the Women's Health Initiative (EPT-WHI).ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between the potential exposure to newspaper coverage and subsequent hormone therapy (HT) use. DESIGN/POPULATION: Population-based cohort of women receiving mammography at 7 sites (327,144 postmenopausal women).MeasurementsThe outcome was the monthly prevalence of self-reported HT use. Circulation data for local, regional, and national newspapers was used to create zip-code level measures of the estimated average household exposure to newspaper coverage that reported the harmful effects of HT in July 2002.ResultsWomen had an average potential household exposure of 1.4 articles. There was substantial variation in the level of average household exposure to newspaper coverage; women from rural sites received less than women from urban sites. Use of HT declined for all average potential exposure groups after the publication of the EPT-WHI. HT prevalence among women who lived in areas where there was an average household exposure of at least 3 articles declined significantly more (45 to 27%) compared to women who lived in areas with