Search

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

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.

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.

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

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

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in numerous changes in delivery of healthcare services, including breast cancer screening and surveillance. Although facilities have implemented a number of strategies to provide services, women's thoughts and experiences related to breast cancer screening and surveillance during a pandemic are not well known. This focus group study with women across seven states recruited through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aims to remedy this gap in information. Thirty women ranging in age from 31 to 69 participated in five virtual focus groups, eight of whom had prior breast cancer. The first three focus groups covered a range of topics related to screening and surveillance during the pandemic while the last two groups covered experiences and then a review of sample communications to women about screening and surveillance during the pandemic to obtain reactions and recommendations. More than half of the women had screening or surveillance during the pandemic. Coding and analyses resulted in nine themes in three topic areas: decision factors, screening experiences, and preferred communications. Themes included weighing the risks of COVID-19 versus cancer; feelings that screening and surveillance were mostly safe but barriers may be heightened; feeling safe when undergoing screening but receiving a range of pandemic-specific communications from none to a lot; and wanting communications that are personalized, clear and concise. Based on these findings, providers and facilities should assure women of pandemic safety measures, review methods and content of communications, and assess for barriers to screening that may be amplified during the pandemic, including anxiety and access.

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.

BackgroundPrevious reports suggested risk of death and breast cancer varied by comorbidity and age in older women undergoing mammography. However, impacts of functional limitations remain unclear.MethodsWe used data from 238,849 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-Medicare linked database (1999-2015) who had screening mammogram at ages 66-94 years. We estimated risk of breast cancer, breast cancer death, and non-breast cancer death by function-related indicator (FRI) which incorporated 16 claims-based items and was categorized as an ordinal variable (0, 1, and 2+). Fine and Gray proportional sub-distribution hazards models were applied with breast cancer and death treated as competing events. Risk estimates by FRI scores were adjusted by age and NCI comorbidity index separately and stratified by these factors.ResultsOverall, 9,252 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, 406 died of breast cancer, and 41,640 died from non-breast cancer causes. The 10-year age-adjusted invasive breast cancer risk slightly decreased with FRI score [FRI = 0: 4.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.8-4.1; FRI = 1: 3.9%, 95% CI = 3.7-4.2; FRI ≥ 2: 3.5%, 95% CI = 3.1-3.9). Risk of non-breast cancer death increased with FRI score (FRI = 0: 18.8%, 95% CI = 18.5-19.1; FRI = 1: 24.4%, 95% CI = 23.9-25.0; FRI ≥ 2: 39.8%, 95% CI = 38.8-40.9]. Risk of breast cancer death was low with minimal differences across FRI scores. NCI comorbidity index-adjusted models and stratified analyses yielded similar patterns.ConclusionsRisk of non-breast cancer death substantially increases with FRI score, whereas risk of breast cancer death is low regardless of functional status.ImpactOlder women with functional limitations should be informed that they may not benefit from screening mammography.

BackgroundAdvanced breast cancer is an outcome used to evaluate screening effectiveness. The advanced cancer definition resulting in the best discrimination of breast cancer death has not been studied in a breast imaging population.MethodsA total of 52 496 women aged 40-79 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium diagnosed with invasive cancer were staged using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) anatomic and prognostic pathologic systems and Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) tumor categories. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 5-year breast cancer death and the sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for 3 advanced cancer classifications: anatomic stage IIB or higher, prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer.ResultsThe area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage, and TMIST tumor categories were 0.826 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.817 to 0.835), 0.856 (95% CI = 0.846 to 0.866), and 0.789 (95% CI = 0.780 to 0.797), respectively. AJCC prognostic pathologic stage had statistically significantly better discrimination than AJCC anatomic stage (difference = 0.030, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.024 to 0.037) and TMIST tumor categories (difference = 0.067, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.059 to 0.075). The sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage IIB or higher, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer were 72.6%, 76.7%, and 96.1%; and 78.9%, 81.6%, and 41.1%, respectively.ConclusionsDefining advanced cancer as AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher most accurately predicts breast cancer death. Use of this definition by investigators will facilitate comparing breast cancer screening effectiveness studies.

BackgroundOverweight/obesity and dense breasts are strong breast cancer risk factors whose prevalences vary by race/ethnicity. The breast cancer population attributable risk proportions (PARP) explained by these factors across racial/ethnic groups are unknown.MethodsWe analyzed data collected from 3,786,802 mammography examinations (1,071,653 women) in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, associated with 21,253 invasive breast cancers during a median of 5.2 years follow-up. HRs for body mass index (BMI) and breast density, adjusted for age and registry were estimated using separate Cox regression models by race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian) and menopausal status. HRs were combined with observed risk-factor proportions to calculate PARPs for shifting overweight/obese to normal BMI and shifting heterogeneously/extremely dense to scattered fibroglandular densities.ResultsThe prevalences and HRs for overweight/obesity and heterogeneously/extremely dense breasts varied across races/ethnicities and menopausal status. BMI PARPs were larger for postmenopausal versus premenopausal women (12.0%-28.3% vs. 1.0%-9.9%) and nearly double among postmenopausal Black women (28.3%) than other races/ethnicities (12.0%-15.4%). Breast density PARPs were larger for premenopausal versus postmenopausal women (23.9%-35.0% vs. 13.0%-16.7%) and lower among premenopausal Black women (23.9%) than other races/ethnicities (30.4%-35.0%). Postmenopausal density PARPs were similar across races/ethnicities (13.0%-16.7%).ConclusionsOverweight/obesity and dense breasts account for large proportions of breast cancers in White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian women despite large differences in risk-factor distributions.ImpactRisk prediction models should consider how race/ethnicity interacts with BMI and breast density. Efforts to reduce BMI could have a large impact on breast cancer risk reduction, particularly among postmenopausal Black women.

BackgroundPotential benefits of screening mammography among women ages 75 years and older remain unclear.MethodsWe evaluated 10-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer and death from breast cancer and other causes by Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and age in the Medicare-linked Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (1999-2010) cohort of 222 088 women with no less than 1 screening mammogram between ages 66 and 94 years.ResultsDuring median follow-up of 107 months, 7583 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 1742 with ductal carcinoma in situ; 471 died from breast cancer and 42 229 from other causes. The 10-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer did not change with increasing CCI but decreased slightly with age: ages 66-74 years (CCI0 = 4.0% [95% CI = 3.9% to 4.2%] vs CCI  ≥ 2 = 3.9% [95% CI = 3.5% to 4.3%]); ages 75-84 years (CCI0 = 3.7% [95% CI = 3.5% to 3.9%] vs CCI  ≥ 2 = 3.4% [95% CI = 2.9% to 3.9%]); and ages 85-94 years (CCI0 = 2.7% [95% CI = 2.3% to 3.1%] vs CCI  ≥ 2 = 2.1% [95% CI = 1.3% to 3.0%]). The 10-year cumulative incidence of other-cause death increased with increasing CCI and age: ages 66-74 years (CCI0 = 10.4% [95% CI = 10.3 to 10.7%] vs CCI ≥ 2 = 43.4% [95% CI = 42.2% to 44.4%]), ages 75-84 years (CCI0 = 29.8% [95% CI = 29.3% to 30.2%] vs CCI ≥ 2 = 61.7% [95% CI = 60.2% to 63.3%]), and ages 85 to 94 years (CCI0 = 60.3% [95% CI = 59.1% to 61.5%] vs CCI  ≥ 2 = 84.8% [95% CI = 82.5% to 86.9%]). The 10-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer death was small and did not vary by age: ages 66-74 years = 0.2% (95% CI = 0.2% to 0.3%), ages 75-84 years = 0.29% (95% CI = 0.25% to 0.34%), and ages 85 to 94 years = 0.3% (95% CI = 0.2% to 0.4%).ConclusionsCumulative incidence of other-cause death was many times higher than breast cancer incidence and death, depending on comorbidity and age. Hence, older women with increased comorbidity may experience diminished benefit from continued screening.

ObjectiveWe sought to identify and characterize examinations in women with a personal history of breast cancer likely performed for asymptomatic surveillance.MethodsWe included surveillance mammograms (1997-2017) in asymptomatic women with a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed at age ≥18 years (1996-2016) from 103 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. We examined facility-level variability in examination indication. We modeled the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at the examination level of a (1) nonscreening indication and (2) surveillance interval ≤9 months using Poisson regression with fixed effects for facility, stage, diagnosis age, surgery, examination year, and time since diagnosis.ResultsAmong 244,855 surveillance mammograms, 69.5% were coded with a screening indication, 12.7% short-interval follow-up, and 15.3% as evaluation of a breast problem. Within a facility, the proportion of examinations with a screening indication ranged from 6% to 100% (median 86%, interquartile range 79%-92%). Facilities varied the most for examinations in the first 5 years after diagnosis, with 39.4% of surveillance mammograms having a nonscreening indication. Within a facility, breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy (RR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.60-1.68) and less time since diagnosis (1 year versus 5 years; RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.66-1.72; 3 years versus 5 years = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.18-1.23) were strongly associated with a nonscreening indication with similar results for ≤9-month surveillance interval. Screening indication and >9-month surveillance intervals were more common in more recent years.ConclusionVariability in surveillance indications across facilities in the United States supports including indications beyond screening in studies evaluating surveillance mammography effectiveness and demonstrates the need for standardization.

ImportanceMany US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251 384 DBT and 2 000 681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019.ExposuresDigital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations.Main outcomes and measuresRecall rate and cancer detection rate.ResultsA total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2 252 065 DM and DBT examinations (2 000 681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251 384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710 934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1 448 981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.

BackgroundNational patterns of breast imaging in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are unknown making evaluation of annual surveillance recommendations a challenge.ObjectiveTo describe variation in use of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations beginning 6 months after diagnosis among women with PHBC in US community practice. We report on the breast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type.DesignLongitudinal study using cross-sectional data.SettingBreast Cancer Surveillance Consortium breast imaging facilities.Participants19,955 women diagnosed between 2005 and 2012 with AJCC stage 0-III incident breast cancer who had 69,386 mammograms and 3,553 breast MRI examinations from January 2005 to September 2013; median follow-up of 37.6 months (interquartile range, 22.1-60.7).Main measuresBreast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type.Key resultsAmong women with a PHBC who received breast imaging, 89.4% underwent mammography alone, 0.8% MRI alone, and 10.3% had both mammography and MRI. About half of mammograms and MRIs were indicated for surveillance vs. diagnostic, with an increase in the proportion of surveillance exams as time from diagnosis increased (mammograms, 45.7% at 1 year to 72.2% after 5 years; MRIs, 54.8% at 1 year to 78.6% after 5 years). In the first post-diagnosis period, 32.8% of women had > 2 breast imaging examinations and of these, 65.8% were less than 6 months apart. During the first 5-year post-diagnosis, the frequency of examinations per year decreased and the interval between examinations shifted towards annual examinations.ConclusionIn women with a PHBC who received post-diagnosis imaging, a third underwent multiple breast imaging examinations per year during the first 2-year post-diagnosis despite recommendations for annual exams. As time since diagnosis increases, imaging indication shifts from diagnostic to surveillance.

Background There is lack of consensus regarding the use of breast MRI for routine surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Purpose To compare performance of surveillance mammography with breast MRI. Materials and Methods This observational cohort study used prospectively collected data and included 13 266 women age 18 years and older (mean age, 60 years ± 13) with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent 33 938 mammographic examinations and 2506 breast MRI examinations from 2005 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Women were categorized into two groups: mammography alone (n = 11 745) or breast MRI (n = 1521). Performance measures were calculated by using end-of-day assessment and occurrence of second breast cancer events within 1 year of imaging. Logistic regression was used to compare performance for breast MRI versus mammography alone, adjusting for women, examination, and primary breast cancer characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a per-examination basis. Results Breast MRI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, chemotherapy, and higher education and income. Raw performance measures for breast MRI versus mammography were as follows, respectively: cancer detection rates, 10.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7, 14.8) versus 8.2 (95% CI: 7.3, 9.2) per 1000 examinations; sensitivity, 61.4% (27 of 44; 95% CI: 46.5%, 76.2%) versus 70.3% (279 of 397; 95% CI: 65.8%, 74.8%); and biopsy rate, 10.1% (253 of 2506; 95% CI: 8.9%, 11.3%) versus 4.0% (1343 of 33 938; 95% CI: 3.7%, 4.2%). In multivariable models, breast MRI was associated with higher biopsy rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.7; P < .001) and cancer detection rate (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7; P = .03) than mammography alone. However, there were no differences in sensitivity (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.9; P = .84) or interval cancer rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .70). Conclusion Comparison of the performance of surveillance breast MRI with mammography must account for patient characteristics. Whereas breast MRI leads to higher biopsy and cancer detection rates, there were no significant differences in sensitivity or interval cancers compared with mammography. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

PurposeTo evaluate comparative associations of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and mammographic breast density with subsequent breast cancer risk.Patients and methodsWe examined women undergoing breast MRI in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium from 2005 to 2015 (with one exam in 2000) using qualitative BPE assessments of minimal, mild, moderate, or marked. Breast density was assessed on mammography performed within 5 years of MRI. Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, the first BPE assessment was included if it was more than 3 months before their first diagnosis. Breast cancer risk associated with BPE was estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsAmong 4,247 women, 176 developed breast cancer (invasive, n = 129; ductal carcinoma in situ,n = 47) over a median follow-up time of 2.8 years. More women with cancer had mild, moderate, or marked BPE than women without cancer (80% v 66%, respectively). Compared with minimal BPE, increasing BPE levels were associated with significantly increased cancer risk (mild: hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.87; moderate: HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.86; and marked: HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.05 to 5.66). Compared with women with minimal BPE and almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density, women with mild, moderate, or marked BPE demonstrated elevated cancer risk if they had almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.46) or heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts (HR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.44 to 4.72), with no significant interaction (P = .82). Combined mild, moderate, and marked BPE demonstrated significantly increased risk of invasive cancer (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.66 to 4.49) but not ductal carcinoma in situ (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.05).ConclusionBPE is associated with future invasive breast cancer risk independent of breast density. BPE should be considered for risk prediction models for women undergoing breast MRI.

Background There is growing evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) results in lower recall rates and higher cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography. However, whether DBT interpretative performance changes with experience (learning curve effect) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate screening DBT performance by cumulative DBT volume within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 106 126 DBT and 221 248 DM examinations in 271 362 women (mean age, 57.5 years) from 2010 to 2017 that were interpreted by 104 radiologists from 53 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate within-radiologist effects of increasing cumulative DBT volume on recall and cancer detection rates relative to DM and was adjusted for examination-level characteristics. Changes were also evaluated by subspecialty and breast density. Results Before DBT adoption, DM recall rate was 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.5%, 11.4%) and cancer detection rate was 4.0 per 1000 screenings (95% CI: 3.6 per 1000 screenings, 4.5 per 1000 screenings); after DBT adoption, DBT recall rate was lower (9.4%; 95% CI: 8.2%, 10.6%; P = .02) and cancer detection rate was similar (4.6 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 4.0 per 1000 screenings, 5.2 per 1000 screenings; P = .12). Relative to DM, DBT recall rate decreased for a cumulative DBT volume of fewer than 400 studies (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.89) and remained lower as volume increased (400-799 studies, OR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.85]; 800-1199 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]; 1200-1599 studies, OR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73, 0.84]; 1600-2000 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.88]; P < .001). Improvements were sustained for breast imaging subspecialists (OR range, 0.67-0.85; P < .02) and readers who were not breast imaging specialists (OR range, 0.80-0.85; P < .001). Recall rates decreased more in women with nondense breasts (OR range, 0.68-0.76; P < .001) than in those with dense breasts (OR range, 0.86-0.90; P ≤ .05; P interaction < .001). Cancer detection rates for DM and DBT were similar, regardless of DBT volume (P ≥ .10). Conclusion Early performance improvements after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption were sustained regardless of DBT volume, radiologist subspecialty, or breast density. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Hooley in this issue.

We conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter study to compare the demographics, clinical characteristics, and lung cancer screening results among individuals eligible for lung cancer screening per 2013 vs 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Statistical tests are 2 sided, with P  less than  .05 considered statistically significant. Among 17 702 screened individuals (85.2% 2013 eligible, 14.8% 2021 newly eligible), a higher proportion of individuals screened per 2021 vs 2013 criteria were female (56.1% vs 48.1%, P  < .001) and non-Hispanic Black (19.3% vs 13.4%, P  < .001). The risk of developing and dying from lung cancer per 1000 people was statistically significantly higher among individuals eligible per 2013 vs 2021 criteria. A higher proportion of lung cancer screening exams had an increased suspicion of lung cancer in the 2013 vs 2021 criteria groups. Our data suggest that, as intended, updated 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations are leading to a higher proportion of lung cancer screening exams among non-Hispanic Black individuals and women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening mammography is a part of routine well-woman care. It is important to understand how receipt of a false-positive mammography result may influence a woman's decision regarding whether and when to return for routine screening. This cohort study evaluates the association between screening mammography results and the probability of subsequent screening. Visual Abstract. Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort: Screening mammography is a part of routine well-woman care. It is important to understand how receipt of a false-positive mammography result may influence a woman's decision regarding whether and when to return for routine screening. This cohort study evaluates the association between screening mammography results and the probability of subsequent screening. Background: False-positive results on screening mammography may affect women's willingness to return for future screening. Objective: To evaluate the association between screening mammography results and the probability of subsequent screening. Design: Cohort study. Setting: 177 facilities participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Patients: 3 529 825 screening mammograms (3 184 482 true negatives and 345 343 false positives) performed from 2005 to 2017 among 1 053 672 women aged 40 to 73 years without a breast cancer diagnosis. Measurements: Mammography results (true-negative result or false-positive recall with a recommendation for immediate additional imaging only, short-interval follow-up, or biopsy) from 1 or 2 screening mammograms. Absolute differences in the probability of returning for screening within 9 to 30 months of false-positive versus true-negative screening results were estimated, adjusting for race, ethnicity, age, time since last mammogram, BCSC registry, and clustering within women and facilities. Results: Women were more likely to return after a true-negative result (76.9% [95% CI, 75.1% to 78.6%]) than after a false-positive recall for additional imaging only (adjusted absolute difference, −1.9 percentage points [CI, −3.1 to −0.7 percentage points]), short-interval follow-up (−15.9 percentage points [CI, −19.7 to −12.0 percentage points]), or biopsy (−10.0 percentage points [CI, −14.2 to −5.9 percentage points]). Asian and Hispanic/Latinx women had the largest decreases in the probability of returning after a false positive with a recommendation for short-interval follow-up (−20 to −25 percentage points) or biopsy (−13 to −14 percentage points) versus a true negative. Among women with 2 screening mammograms within 5 years, a false-positive result on the second was associated with a decreased probability of returning for a third regardless of the first screening result. Limitation: Women could receive care at non-BCSC facilities. Conclusion: Women were less likely to return to screening after false-positive mammography results, especially with recommendations for short-interval follow-up or biopsy, raising concerns about continued participation in routine screening among these women at increased breast cancer risk. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT.Subjects and methodsFacility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods.ResultsAcross five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month).ConclusionIn a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.

Purpose The aim of the current study was to characterize the risk of interval invasive second breast cancers within 5 years of primary breast cancer treatment. Methods We examined 65,084 surveillance mammograms from 18,366 women with a primary breast cancer diagnosis of unilateral ductal carcinoma in situ or stage I to III invasive breast carcinoma performed from 1996 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Interval invasive breast cancer was defined as ipsilateral or contralateral cancer diagnosed within 1 year after a negative surveillance mammogram. Discrete-time survival models-adjusted for all covariates-were used to estimate the probability of interval invasive cancer, given the risk factors for each surveillance round, and aggregated across rounds to estimate the 5-year cumulative probability of interval invasive cancer. Results We observed 474 surveillance-detected cancers-334 invasive and 140 ductal carcinoma in situ-and 186 interval invasive cancers which yielded a cancer detection rate of 7.3 per 1,000 examinations (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.0) and an interval invasive cancer rate of 2.9 per 1,000 examinations (95% CI, 2.5 to 3.3). Median cumulative 5-year interval cancer risk was 1.4% (interquartile range, 0.8% to 2.3%; 10th to 90th percentile range, 0.5% to 3.7%), and 15% of women had ≥ 3% 5-year interval invasive cancer risk. Cumulative 5-year interval cancer risk was highest for women with estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-negative primary breast cancer (2.6%; 95% CI, 1.7% to 3.5%), interval cancer presentation at primary diagnosis (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 2.9%), and breast conservation without radiation (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.1% to 2.4%). Conclusion Risk of interval invasive second breast cancer varies across women and is influenced by characteristics that can be measured at initial diagnosis, treatment, and imaging. Risk prediction models that evaluate the risk of cancers not detected by surveillance mammography should be developed to inform discussions of tailored surveillance.

BackgroundAccurately identifying women with dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] heterogeneously or extremely dense) who are at high breast cancer risk will facilitate discussions of supplemental imaging and primary prevention. We examined the independent contribution of dense breast volume and BI-RADS breast density to predict invasive breast cancer and whether dense breast volume combined with Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model factors (age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, history of breast biopsy, and BI-RADS breast density) improves identifying women with dense breasts at high breast cancer risk.MethodsWe conducted a case-control study of 1720 women with invasive cancer and 3686 control subjects. We calculated ORs and 95% CIs for the effect of BI-RADS breast density and Volpara™ automated dense breast volume on invasive cancer risk, adjusting for other BCSC risk model factors plus body mass index (BMI), and we compared C-statistics between models. We calculated BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk, incorporating the adjusted ORs associated with dense breast volume.ResultsCompared with women with BI-RADS scattered fibroglandular densities and second-quartile dense breast volume, women with BI-RADS extremely dense breasts and third- or fourth-quartile dense breast volume (75% of women with extremely dense breasts) had high breast cancer risk (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.84-4.47, and OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.87-3.52, respectively), whereas women with extremely dense breasts and first- or second-quartile dense breast volume were not at significantly increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.75-3.09, and OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.82-2.73, respectively). Adding continuous dense breast volume to a model with BCSC risk model factors and BMI increased discriminatory accuracy compared with a model with only BCSC risk model factors (C-statistic 0.639, 95% CI 0.623-0.654, vs. C-statistic 0.614, 95% CI 0.598-0.630, respectively; P

Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and included BCSC screening MR examinations collected between 2005 and 2013 from 5343 women (8387 MR examinations) linked to regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries, state tumor registries, and pathologic information databases that identified breast cancer cases and tumor characteristics. Clinical, demographic, and imaging characteristics were assessed. Performance measures were calculated according to BI-RADS fifth edition and included cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), sensitivity, and specificity. Results The median patient age was 52 years; 52% of MR examinations were performed in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, 46% in women with a personal history of breast cancer, and 15% in women with both risk factors. Screening MR imaging depicted 146 cancers, and 35 interval cancers were identified (181 total-54 in situ, 125 invasive, and two status unknown). The CDR was 17 per 1000 screening examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15, 20 per 1000 screening examinations; BI-RADS benchmark, 20-30 per 1000 screening examinations). PPV2 was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 22%; benchmark, 15%). Sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%; benchmark, >80%), and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 82%, 84%; benchmark, 85%-90%). The median tumor size of invasive cancers was 10 mm; 88% were node negative. Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in the BCSC meets most BI-RADS benchmarks and approaches benchmark levels for remaining measures. Clinical practice performance data can inform ongoing benchmark development and help identify areas for quality improvement. © RSNA, 2017.

Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography and assess performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study measured the performance of digital screening mammography interpreted by 359 radiologists across 95 facilities in six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The study included 1 682 504 digital screening mammograms performed between 2007 and 2013 in 792 808 women. Performance measures were calculated according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th edition, and were compared with published benchmarks by the BCSC, the National Mammography Database, and performance recommendations by expert opinion. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance metrics across radiologists and were presented as 50th (median), 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, with graphic presentations using smoothed curves. Results Mean screening performance measures were as follows: abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), 11.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5, 11.6); cancers detected per 1000 screens, or cancer detection rate (CDR), 5.1 (95% CI: 5.0, 5.2); sensitivity, 86.9% (95% CI: 86.3%, 87.6%); specificity, 88.9% (95% CI: 88.8%, 88.9%); false-negative rate per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 0.8); positive predictive value (PPV) 1, 4.4% (95% CI: 4.3%, 4.5%); PPV2, 25.6% (95% CI: 25.1%, 26.1%); PPV3, 28.6% (95% CI: 28.0%, 29.3%); cancers stage 0 or 1, 76.9%; minimal cancers, 57.7%; and node-negative invasive cancers, 79.4%. Recommended CDRs were achieved by 92.1% of radiologists in community practice, and 97.1% achieved recommended ranges for sensitivity. Only 59.0% of radiologists achieved recommended AIRs, and only 63.0% achieved recommended levels of specificity. Conclusion The majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass cancer detection recommendations for screening mammography; however, AIRs continue to be higher than the recommended rate for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Purpose To establish contemporary performance benchmarks for diagnostic digital mammography with use of recent data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained for active or passive consenting processes or to obtain a waiver of consent to enroll participants, link data, and perform analyses. Data were obtained from six BCSC registries (418 radiologists, 92 radiology facilities). Mammogram indication and assessments were prospectively collected for women undergoing diagnostic digital mammography and linked with cancer diagnoses from state cancer registries. The study included 401 548 examinations conducted from 2007 to 2013 in 265 360 women. Results Overall diagnostic performance measures were as follows: cancer detection rate, 34.7 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.1, 35.2); abnormal interpretation rate, 12.6% (95% CI: 12.5%, 12.7%); positive predictive value (PPV) of a biopsy recommendation (PPV2), 27.5% (95% CI: 27.1%, 27.9%); PPV of biopsies performed (PPV3), 30.4% (95% CI: 29.9%, 30.9%); false-negative rate, 4.8 per 1000 (95% CI: 4.6, 5.0); sensitivity, 87.8% (95% CI: 87.3%, 88.4%); and specificity, 90.5% (95% CI: 90.4%, 90.6%). Among cancers detected, 63.4% were stage 0 or 1 cancers, 45.6% were minimal cancers, the mean size of invasive cancers was 21.2 mm, and 69.6% of invasive cancers were node negative. Performance metrics varied widely across diagnostic indications, with cancer detection rate (64.5 per 1000) and abnormal interpretation rate (18.7%) highest for diagnostic mammograms obtained to evaluate a breast problem with a lump. Compared with performance during the screen-film mammography era, diagnostic digital performance showed increased abnormal interpretation and cancer detection rates and decreasing PPVs, with less than 70% of radiologists within acceptable ranges for PPV2 and PPV3. Conclusion These performance measures can serve as national benchmarks that may help transform the marked variation in radiologists' diagnostic performance into targeted quality improvement efforts. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Lung cancer in women is a modern epidemic and represents a global health crisis. Cigarette smoking remains the most important risk factor for lung cancer in all patients and, among women globally, rates of smoking continue to increase. Although some data exist supporting sex‐based differences across the continuum of lung cancer, there is currently a dearth of research exploring the differences in risk, biology, and treatment outcomes in women. Consequently, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable recognizes the urgent need to promote awareness and future research that will close the knowledge gaps regarding lung cancer in women. To this end, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Task Group on Lung Cancer in Women convened a summit undertaking the following to: (1) summarize existing evidence and identify knowledge gaps surrounding the epidemiology, risk factors, biologic differences, and outcomes of lung cancer in women; (2) develop and prioritize research topics and questions that address research gaps and advance knowledge to improve quality of care of lung cancer in women; and (3) propose strategies for future research. Plain language summary: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in women, and, despite comparatively lower exposures to occupational and environmental carcinogens compared with men, disproportionately higher lung cancer rates in women who ever smoked and women who never smoked call for increased awareness and research that will close the knowledge gaps regarding lung cancer in women. The rising incidence and mortality of lung cancer among certain populations have resulted in a major health crisis worldwide. Despite comparatively less exposure to occupational and environmental carcinogens than their male counterparts, disproportionately high lung cancer rates in women who ever smoked and women who never smoked suggests other mechanisms influencing risk that warrant better understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard in determining efficacy of cancer screening tests. Yet, systematic differences between RCT and the general populations eligible for screening raise concerns about the generalizability and relevance of RCT findings to guide the development and dissemination of cancer screening programs. Observational studies from clinical practice settings have documented selective uptake in screening--i.e., variation across subgroups regarding who is screened and not screened--as well as suboptimal adherence to screening recommendations, including follow-up of positive findings with subsequent imaging studies and diagnostic invasive procedures. When the effectiveness of a screening intervention varies across subgroups, and there is selective uptake and suboptimal adherence to screening in clinical practice relative to that in the RCT, the effects of screening reported in RCTs are not expected to generalize to clinical practice settings. Understanding the impacts of selective uptake and suboptimal adherence on estimates of the effectiveness of cancer screening in clinical practice will generate evidence that can be used to inform future screening recommendations and enhance shared decision-making tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ImportanceScreening mammography intervals remain under debate in the United States.ObjectiveTo compare the proportion of breast cancers with less vs more favorable prognostic characteristics in women screening annually vs biennially by age, menopausal status, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a study of a prospective cohort from 1996 to 2012 at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. A total of 15,440 women ages 40 to 85 years with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of an annual or within 2 years of a biennial screening mammogram.ExposuresWe updated previous analyses by using narrower intervals for defining annual (11-14 months) and biennial (23-26 months) screening.Main outcomes and measuresWe defined less favorable prognostic characteristics as tumors that were stage IIB or higher, size greater than 15 mm, positive nodes, and any 1 or more of these characteristics. We used log-binomial regression to model the proportion of breast cancers with less favorable characteristics following a biennial vs annual screen by 10-year age groups and by menopausal status and current postmenopausal HT use.ResultsAmong 15,440 women with breast cancer, most were 50 years or older (13,182 [85.4%]), white (12,063 [78.1%]), and postmenopausal (9823 [63.6%]). Among 2027 premenopausal women (13.1%), biennial screeners had higher proportions of tumors that were stage IIB or higher (relative risk [RR], 1.28 [95% CI, 1.01-1.63]; P=.04), size greater than 15 mm (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07-1.37]; P=.002), and with any less favorable prognostic characteristic (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00-1.22]; P=.047) compared with annual screeners. Among women currently taking postmenopausal HT, biennial screeners tended to have tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics compared with annual screeners; however, 95% CIs were wide, and differences were not statistically significant (for stage 2B+, RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.89-1.47], P=.29; size>15 mm, RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.98-1.31], P=.09; node positive, RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.98-1.42], P=.09; any less favorable characteristic, RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.25], P=.053). The proportions of tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics were not significantly larger for biennial vs annual screeners among postmenopausal women not taking HT (eg, any characteristic: RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.95-1.12]; P=.45), postmenopausal HT users after subdividing by type of hormone use (eg, any characteristic: estrogen+progestogen users, RR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.91-1.47]; P=.22; estrogen-only users, RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.94-1.37]; P=.18), or any 10-year age group (eg, any characteristic: ages 40-49 years, RR, .1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.14]; P=.48; ages 50-59 years, RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.94-1.12]; P=.58; ages 60-69 years, RR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.97-1.19]; P=.18; ages 70-85 years, RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.94-1.18]; P=.35).Conclusions and relevancePremenopausal women diagnosed as having breast cancer following biennial vs annual screening mammography are more likely to have tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics. Postmenopausal women not using HT who are diagnosed as having breast cancer following a biennial or annual screen have similar proportions of tumors with less favorable prognostic characteristics.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether pathologic findings of screen-detected and interval cancers differ for digital versus film mammography.Materials and methodsBreast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from 2003-2011 on 3,021,515 screening mammograms (40.3% digital, 59.7% film) of women 40-89 years old were reviewed. Cancers were considered screen detected if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with positive findings and interval if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with negative findings. Tumor characteristics for screen-detected and interval cancers were compared for digital versus film mammography by use of logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio and 95% CI with adjustment for age, race and ethnicity, hormone therapy use, screening interval, examination year, and registry. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for correlation within facilities.ResultsAmong 15,729 breast cancers, 85.3% were screen detected and 14.7% were interval. Digital and film mammography had similar rates of screen-detected (4.47 vs 4.42 per 1000 examinations) and interval (0.73 vs 0.79 per 1000 examinations) cancers for digital versus film. In adjusted analyses, interval cancers diagnosed after digital examinations with negative findings were less likely to be American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB or higher (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93), have positive nodal status (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95), or be estrogen receptor negative (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91) than were interval cancers diagnosed after a film examination with negative findings.ConclusionScreen-detected cancers diagnosed after digital and film mammography had similar rates of unfavorable tumor characteristics. Interval-detected cancers diagnosed after a digital examination were less likely to have unfavorable tumor features than those diagnosed after film mammography, but the absolute differences were small.