Search

OBJECTIVE: To understand mammographers' perception of individual women's breast cancer risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists interpreting screening mammography examinations completed a mailed survey consisting of questions pertaining to demographic and clinical practice characteristics, as well as 2 vignettes describing different risk profiles of women. Respondents were asked to estimate the probability of a breast cancer diagnosis in the next 5 years for each vignette. Vignette responses were plotted against mean recall rates in actual clinical practice. RESULTS: The survey was returned by 77% of eligible radiologists. Ninety-three percent of radiologists overestimated risk in the vignette involving a 70-year-old woman; 96% overestimated risk in the vignette involving a 41-year-old woman. Radiologists who more accurately estimated breast cancer risk were younger, worked full-time, were affiliated with an academic medical center, had fellowship training, had fewer than 10 years experience interpreting mammograms, and worked more than 40% of the time in breast imaging. However, only age was statistically significant. No association was found between radiologists' risk estimate and their recall rate. CONCLUSION: U.S. radiologists have a heightened perception of breast cancer risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An amorphous silicon-based full-breast imager for digital mammography was evaluated for detector stability over a period of 1 year. This imager uses a structured CsI:TI scintillator coupled to an amorphous silicon layer with a 100-micron pixel pitch and read out by special purpose electronics. The stability of the system was characterized using the following quantifiable metrics: conversion factor (mean number of electrons generated per incident x-ray), presampling modulation transfer function (MTF), detector linearity and sensitivity, detector signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom scores. Qualitative metrics such as flat field uniformity, geometric distortion, and Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) test pattern image quality were also used to study the stability of the system. Observations made over this 1-year period indicated that the maximum variation from the average of the measurements were less than 0.5% for conversion factor, 3% for presampling MTF over all spatial frequencies, 5% for signal response, linearity and sensitivity, 12% for SNR over seven locations for all 3 target-filter combinations, and 0% for ACR accreditation phantom scores. ACR mammographic accreditation phantom images indicated the ability to resolve 5 fibers, 4 speck groups, and 5 masses at a mean glandular dose of 1.23 mGy. The SMPTE pattern image quality test for the display monitors used for image viewing indicated ability to discern all contrast steps and ability to distinguish line-pair images at the center and corners of the image. No bleeding effects were observed in the image. Flat field uniformity for all 3 target-filter combinations displayed no artifacts such as gridlines, bad detector rows or columns, horizontal or vertical streaks, or bad pixels. Wire mesh screen images indicated uniform resolution and no geometric distortion. Copyright © 2000 by W.B. Saunders Company [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear.Methods: We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve.Results: Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005).Conclusions: The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Even after careful clinical and mammographic evaluation, cancer is found in the contralateral breast in up to 10% of women who have received treatment for unilateral breast cancer. We conducted a study to determine whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could improve on clinical breast examination and mammography in detecting contralateral breast cancer soon after the initial diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. Methods: A total of 969 women with a recent diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer and no abnormalities on mammographic and clinical examination of the contralateral breast underwent breast MRI. The diagnosis of MRI-detected cancer was confirmed by means of biopsy within 12 months after study entry. The absence of breast cancer was determined by means of biopsy, the absence of positive findings on repeat imaging and clinical examination, or both at 1 year of follow-up. Results: MRI detected clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer in the contralateral breast in 30 of 969 women who were enrolled in the study (3.1%). The sensitivity of MRI in the contralateral breast was 91%, and the specificity was 88%. The negative predictive value of MRI was 99%. A biopsy was performed on the basis of a positive MRI finding in 121 of the 969 women (12.5%), 30 of whom had specimens that were positive for cancer (24.8%); 18 of the 30 specimens were positive for invasive cancer. The mean diameter of the invasive tumors detected was 10.9 mm. The additional number of cancers detected was not influenced by breast density, menopausal status, or the histologic features of the primary tumor. Conclusions: MRI can detect cancer in the contralateral breast that is missed by mammography and clinical examination at the time of the initial breast-cancer diagnosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00058058 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The incidence of distant-stage (metastatic) breast cancer at initial presentation has increased significantly in U.S. women under 40 years of age, but no clear trend in older women has been reported. Purpose To investigate trends in distant-stage breast cancer incidence using the latest available Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, including the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study of 71 million to 80 million women annually, SEER 22 stage-specific breast cancer incidence rates from January 2004 to December 2021 were analyzed using Joinpoint software to evaluate trends in distant-stage disease in U.S. women overall, by age group, and by race and ethnicity. Results Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates at presentation increased significantly for U.S. women overall, with an annual percentage change (APC) of 1.16% (95% CI: 0.92, 1.42; P < .001) over 2004-2021. Distant-stage disease increased consistently for women aged 20-39 years (APC, 2.91%; P < .001) and for women aged 75 years or older (APC, 1.44%; P < .001). For women aged 40-74 years, the distant-stage breast cancer incidence rate increased with an APC of 2.10% over 2004-2010 ( P = .002) and an APC of 2.73% over 2018-2021 ( P = 0.01). The interruption of care in 2020 due to COVID-19 affected distant-stage breast cancer detection, especially for older women from racial and ethnic minority groups. The incidence of distant-stage breast cancer increased over 2004-2021 for Asian women (APC, 2.90%; P < .001), Black women (0.86%; P = .008), and Hispanic women (1.56%; P < .001) and over 2004-2019 for Native American women (3.86%; P = .04). White women showed an increase over 2004-2012 (1.68%; P = .01) but no evidence of a trend over 2012-2021. Distant-stage cancer incidence rates were 55% higher in Black women than White women. Conclusion Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates at presentation have increased significantly in U.S. women overall; in age groups 20-39 years, 40-74 years, and 75 years or older; and in Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Native American women. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kim and Moy in this issue.

Overdiagnosis is the concept that some cancers detected at screening would never have become clinically apparent during a woman's lifetime in the absence of screening. This could occur if a woman dies of a cause other than breast cancer in the interval between mammographic detection and clinical detection (obligate overdiagnosis) or if a mammographically detected breast cancer fails to progress to clinical presentation. Overdiagnosis cannot be measured directly. Indirect methods of estimating overdiagnosis include use of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate breast cancer mortality, population-based screening studies, or modeling. In each case, estimates of overdiagnosis must consider lead time, breast cancer incidence trends in the absence of screening, and accurate and predictable rates of tumor progression. Failure to do so has led to widely varying estimates of overdiagnosis. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considers overdiagnosis a major harm of mammography screening. Their 2024 report estimated overdiagnosis using summary evaluations of 3 RCTs that did not provide screening to their control groups at the end of the screening period, along with Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network modeling. However, there are major flaws in their evidence sources and modeling estimates, limiting the USPSTF assessment. The most plausible estimates remain those based on observational studies that suggest overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is 10% or less and can be attributed primarily to obligate overdiagnosis and nonprogressive ductal carcinoma in situ., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The 2023 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer recommends lowering the starting age for biennial screening with mammography to age 40 years from 50 years, the age of screening initiation that the Task Force had previously recommended since 2009. A recent Perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Woloshin et al contends that this change will provide no additional benefit and is unjustified. This article reviews the main ideas presented by Woloshin et al and provides substantial evidence not considered by those authors in support of screening mammography in U.S. women starting at age 40 years., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2024. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background There is ongoing debate about recommendations for breast cancer screening strategies, specifically regarding the frequency of screening and the age at which to initiate screening. Purpose To compare estimates of breast cancer screening outcomes published by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to understand the benefits and risks of different screening scenarios. Materials and Methods Modeling estimates published by CISNET are based on hypothetical cohorts in the United States and compare women, starting at 40 years of age, who do and do not undergo breast cancer screening with mammography. The four scenarios assessed in this study, of multiple possible scenarios, were biennial screening ages 50-74 years (2009 and 2016 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] recommendations), biennial screening ages 40-74 years (2023 USPSTF draft recommendation), annual screening ages 40-74 years, and annual screening ages 40-79 years. For each scenario, CISNET estimates of median lifetime benefits were compared. Risks that included false-positive screening results per examination and benign biopsies per examination were also calculated and compared. Results Estimates from CISNET 2023 showed that annual screening ages 40-79 years improved breast cancer mortality reduction compared with biennial screening ages 50-74 years and biennial screening ages 40-74 years (41.7%, 25.4%, and 30%, respectively). Annual screening ages 40-79 years averted the most breast cancer deaths (11.5 per 1000) and gained the most life-years (230 per 1000) compared with other screening scenarios (range, 6.7-11.5 per 1000 and 121-230 per 1000, respectively). False-positive screening results per examination were less than 10% for all screening scenarios (range, 6.5%-9.6%) and lowest for annual screening ages 40-79 years (6.5%). Benign biopsies per examination were less than 1.33% for all screening scenarios (range, 0.88%-1.32%) and lowest for annual screening ages 40-79 years (0.88%). Conclusion CISNET 2023 modeling estimates indicate that annual breast cancer screening starting at 40 years of age provides the greatest benefit to women and the least risk per examination. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Joe in this issue.

Background: The US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Dutch-Belgian NELSON randomized controlled trials have shown significant mortality reductions from low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening (LCS). NLST, ITALUNG, and COSMOS trials have provided detailed dosimetry data for LCS., Methods: LCS trial mortality benefit results, organ dose and effective dose data, and Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Report VII (BEIR VII) organ dose-to-cancer-mortality risk data are used to estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios of the NLST, ITALUNG, and COSMOS trials. Data from those trials also are used to estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for longer-term LCS corresponding to scenarios recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force and the American Cancer Society., Results: Including only screening doses, NLST benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios are 12:1 for males, 19:1 for females, and 16:1 overall. Including both screening and estimated follow-up doses, benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for NLST are 9:1 for males, 13:1 for females, and 12:1 overall. For the ITALUNG trial, the benefit-to-radiation-risk ratio is 58-63:1. For the COSMOS trial, assuming sex-specific mortality benefits like those of the NELSON trial, the benefit-to-radiation-risk ratio is 23:1. Assuming a conservative 20% mortality benefit, annual screening in people 50-79 years old with a 20+ pack-year history of smoking has benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios of 23:1 (with follow-up doses adding 40% to screening doses) to 29:1 (with follow-up adding 10%) based on COSMOS dose data., Conclusions: Based on linear, no threshold BEIR VII dose-risk estimates, benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for LCS are highly favorable. Results emphasize the importance of using modern CT technologies, maintaining low diagnostic follow-up rates, and minimizing both screening and diagnostic follow-up doses., Plain Language Summary: The benefits of lung cancer screening significantly outweigh estimates of future harms associated with exposure to radiation during screening and diagnostic follow-up examinations. Our findings emphasize the importance of lung cancer screening practices using state-of-the-art computed tomography scanners and specialized low-dose lung screening and diagnostic follow-up techniques., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data from 1973-2010 have been used to show that minority women have disproportionately higher percentages of breast cancers diagnosed at younger ages in comparison with White women., Methods: The authors analyzed SEER 21 invasive breast cancer incidence data for 2014-2017 and National Center for Health Statistics mortality data for 2014-2018 and compared invasive incidence and mortality by age in non-Hispanic Black (NH-Black), Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI), Native American, and Hispanic women with those in non-Hispanic White (NH-White) women. They evaluated incidence rates and percentages of invasive breast cancer cases and breast cancer deaths occurring before the age of 50 years along with advanced-stage incidence rates and percentages in minority women versus NH-White women., Results: Recent SEER data showed that invasive breast cancers were diagnosed at significantly younger ages in minority women versus NH-White women. Among women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, compared with NH-White women, minority women were 72% more likely to be diagnosed under the age of 50 years (relative risk [RR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-1.75), 58% more likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer under the age of 50 years (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.55-1.61), and 24% more likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage (regional or distant) breast cancer at all ages (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.23-1.25). Among women dying of breast cancer, minority women were 127% more likely to die under the age of 50 years than NH-White women., Conclusions: NH-Black, AAPI, Native American, and Hispanic women have higher proportions of invasive breast cancers at younger ages and at advanced stages and breast cancer deaths at younger ages than NH-White women., Lay Summary: This study analyzes the most recently available data on invasive breast cancers and breast cancer deaths in US women by age and race/ethnicity. Its findings show that non-Hispanic Black, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Hispanic women have a higher percentage of invasive breast cancers at younger ages and at more advanced stages and a higher percentage of breast cancer deaths at younger ages than non-Hispanic White women., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data for U.S. women have shown a steady decline in breast cancer mortality rates since 1989. Purpose To analyze U.S. breast cancer mortality rates by age decade in women aged 20-79 years and in women aged 20-39 years and women aged 40-69 years. Materials and Methods The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of (a) female breast cancer mortality rates from NCHS data for 1969-2017 for all races and by race and (b) age- and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Joinpoint analysis was used to determine trends in breast cancer mortality, invasive breast cancer incidence, and distant-stage (metastatic) breast cancer incidence rates. Results Between 1989 and 2010, breast cancer mortality rates decreased by 1.5%-3.4% per year for each age decade from 20 to 79 years ( P < .001 for each). After 2010, breast cancer mortality rates continued to decline by 1.2%-2.2% per year in women in each age decade from 40 to 79 years ( P < .001 for each) but stopped declining in women younger than 40 years. After 2010, breast cancer mortality rates demonstrated nonsignificant increases of 2.8% per year in women aged 20-29 years ( P = .11) and 0.3% per year in women aged 30-39 years ( P = .70), results attributable primarily to changes in mortality rates in White women. A contributing factor is that distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years. Conclusion Female breast cancer mortality rates have stopped declining in women younger than 40 years, ending a trend that existed from 1987 to 2010. Conversely, mortality rates have continued to decline in women aged 40-79 years. Rapidly rising distant-stage breast cancer rates have likely contributed to ending the decline in mortality rates in women younger than 40 years. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

This article describes radiation doses and cancer risks of digital breast imaging technologies used for breast cancer detection. These include digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and newer technologies such as contrast-enhanced digital or spectral mammography (CEM), whole-breast computed tomography, breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI), molecular breast imaging (MBI), and positron emission mammography (PEM). This article describes the basis for radiation risk estimates, compares radiation doses and risks, and provides benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for different breast imaging modalities that use ionizing radiation. Current x-ray-based screening modalities such as DM and DBT have small to negligible risks of causing radiation-induced cancers in women of normal screening age. Possible new screening modalities such as CEM have similar small cancer risks. Potential screening modalities that involve radionuclide injection such as BSGI, MBI, and PEM have significantly higher cancer risks unless efficient detection systems and reduced administered doses are used. Benefit-to-radiation-risk estimates are highly favorable for screening with DM and other modalities having comparable (or higher) cancer detection rates and comparably low radiation doses., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The American Cancer Society (ACS) suggests using a stratified strategy for breast cancer screening. The strategy includes assessing risk of breast cancer, screening women at high risk with both MRI and mammography, and screening women at low risk with mammography alone. The ACS chose their cutoff for high risk using expert consensus., Methods: We propose instead an analytic approach that maximizes the diagnostic accuracy (AUC/ROC) of a risk-based stratified screening strategy in a population. The inputs are the joint distribution of screening test scores, and the odds of disease, for the given risk score. Using the approach for breast cancer screening, we estimated the optimal risk cutoff for two different risk models: the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (BCSC) model and a hypothetical model with much better discriminatory accuracy. Data on mammography and MRI test score distributions were drawn from the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group., Results: A risk model with an excellent discriminatory accuracy (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) yielded a reasonable cutoff where only about 20% of women had dual screening. However, the BCSC risk model (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) lacked the discriminatory accuracy to differentiate between women who needed dual screening, and women who needed only mammography., Conclusion: Our research provides a general approach to optimize the diagnostic accuracy of a stratified screening strategy in a population, and to assess whether risk models are sufficiently accurate to guide stratified screening. For breast cancer, most risk models lack enough discriminatory accuracy to make stratified screening a reasonable recommendation.

Background: From 1975 to 1990, female breast cancer mortality rates in the United States increased by 0.4% per year. Since 1990, breast cancer mortality rates have fallen between 1.8% and 3.4% per year, a decrease that is attributed to increased mammography screening and improved treatment., Methods: The authors used age-adjusted female breast cancer mortality rate and population data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program to estimate the number of breast cancer deaths averted by screening mammography and improved treatment since 1989. Four different assumptions regarding background mortality rates (in the absence of screening mammography and improved treatment) were used to estimate deaths averted for women aged 40 to 84 years by taking the difference between SEER-reported mortality rates and background mortality rates for each 5-year age group, multiplied by the population for each 5-year age group. SEER data were used to estimate annual and cumulative breast cancer deaths averted in 2012 and 2015 and extrapolated SEER data were used to estimate deaths averted in 2018., Results: The number of single-year breast cancer deaths averted ranged from 20,860 to 33,842 in 2012, from 23,703 to 39,415 in 2015, and from 27,083 to 45,726 in 2018. Breast cancer mortality reductions ranged from 38.6% to 50.5% in 2012, from 41.5% to 54.2% in 2015, and from 45.3% to 58.3% in 2018. Cumulative breast cancer deaths averted since 1989 ranged from 237,234 to 370,402 in 2012, from 305,934 to 483,435 in 2015, and from 384,046 to 614,484 in 2018., Conclusions: Since 1989, between 384,000 and 614,500 breast cancer deaths have been averted through the use of mammography screening and improved treatment., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose To determine obligate overdiagnosis rates, defined as the percentage of women diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer who die of causes other than breast cancer prior to clinical presentation of that cancer, for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive breast cancer, and all breast cancers. Materials and Methods Age-specific all-cause mortality rates from the Human Mortality Database, age-specific breast cancer incidence and mortality rates from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, and estimates of mean lead times and lead time distributions from breast cancer screening trials are used to estimate obligate (or type 1) overdiagnosis rates for DCIS, invasive breast cancer, and all breast cancers (DCIS plus invasive) for U.S. women undergoing screening mammography. Mortality rates by age are used to estimate the number of women who die of causes other than breast cancer during the lead time afforded by screening mammography. Resulting age-dependent overdiagnosis rates, along with screen-detected breast cancer incidence by age, are used to estimate type 1 overdiagnosis rates for the U.S. screening population. Results Obligate overdiagnosis rates depend strongly on the age at which a woman is screened, ranging from less than 1% at age 40 years to 30%, 21%, and 22.5% at age 80 years for DCIS, invasive breast cancer, and all breast cancers, respectively. Type 1 overdiagnosis rates among screened women in the United States are estimated to be 9% for DCIS and approximately 7% for both invasive breast cancer and all breast cancers. Screening of women ages 40-49 years (or premenopausal women, as determined from patient history, starting at age 40 years) adds little to obligate overdiagnosis rates (0.15% for DCIS and less than 0.1% for invasive breast cancer and all breast cancers). Conclusion Type 1 overdiagnosis rates increase rapidly with age at screening. Obligate overdiagnosis occurs in 9% of DCIS and approximately 7% of both invasive breast cancer and all breast cancers in the U.S. mammographic screening population, with screening of women ages 40-49 years (or premenopausal women starting at age 40 years) making a negligible contribution of 0.15% to obligate overdiagnosis of DCIS and a contribution of less than 0.1% to the obligate overdiagnosis rates of invasive breast cancer and all breast cancers. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Objective: The discovery of breast cancer at earlier stages with screening brings the risk that some cancers will be overdiagnosed or overtreated. Reasonable estimates show the overdiagnosis rate due to screening mammography to be low, 1-10%., Conclusion: Overdiagnosis should not be used as a reason to delay the onset or decrease the frequency of screening, because neither strategy will decrease overdiagnosis. Improvements in personalized treatment will diminish the morbidity of treatment and, therefore, the significance of overdiagnosis.

Objective: Breast cancer is an important health problem for women 40-49 years old, yet screening mammography for this age group remains controversial. This article reviews recent guidelines and supporting evidence on screening mammography in women of this age group., Conclusion: Evidence supports the benefit of annual screening mammography in women 40-49 years old. Models of different breast cancer screening strategies consistently show the greatest breast cancer mortality reduction and life-years gained with annual screening starting when women reach 40 years old.

Background: Currently, there are several different recommendations for screening mammography from major national health care organizations, including: 1) annual screening at ages 40 to 84 years; 2) screening annually at ages 45 to 54 years, then biennially at ages 55 to 79 years; and 3) biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years., Methods: Mean values of six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models were used to compare these three screening mammography recommendations in terms of benefits and risks., Results: Mean mortality reduction was greatest with the recommendation of annual screening at ages 40 to 84 years (39.6%), compared with the hybrid recommendation of screening annually at ages 45 to 54 years, then biennially at ages 55 to 79 years (30.8%), and the recommendation of biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years (23.2%). For a single-year cohort of US women aged 40 years, assuming 100% compliance, more breast cancers deaths would be averted over their lifetime with annual screening starting at age 40 (29,369) than with the hybrid recommendation (22,829) or biennial screening ages 50-74 (17,153 based on 2009 CISNET estimates, 15,599 based on 2016 CISNET estimates). To achieve the greatest mortality benefit, this single-year cohort of women would have the greatest total number of screening mammograms, benign recalls, and benign biopsies performed over the course of screening by following annual screening starting at age 40 years (90.2 million, 6.8 million, and 481,269, respectively) than by following the hybrid recommendation (49.0 million, 4.1 million, and 286,288, respectively) or biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years (27.3 million, 2.3 million, and 162,885, respectively)., Conclusion: CISNET models demonstrate that the greatest mortality reduction is achieved with annual screening of women starting at age 40 years. Cancer 2017;123:3673-3680. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Breast cancer is the most common non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. Before the introduction of widespread mammographic screening in the mid-1980s, the death rate from breast cancer in the US had remained unchanged for more than 4 decades. Since 1990, the death rate has declined by at least 38%. Much of this change is attributed to early detection with mammography. ACR breast cancer screening experts have reviewed data from RCTs, observational studies, US screening data, and other peer-reviewed literature to update our recommendations. Mammography screening has consistently been shown to significantly reduce breast cancer mortality over a variety of study designs. The ACR recommends annual mammography screening starting at age 40 for women of average risk of developing breast cancer. Our recommendation is based on maximizing proven benefits, which include a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality afforded by regular screening and improved treatment options for those diagnosed with breast cancer. The risks associated with mammography screening are also considered to assist women in making an informed choice., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose To estimate the benefit-to-radiation risk ratios of mammography alone, breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) alone, and mammography plus BSGI in women with dense breasts who were asymptomatic and examined in the 2015 study by Rhodes et al. Materials and Methods This study uses previously published breast cancer detection rates and estimates of radiation dose and radiation risk and is, therefore, exempt from institutional review board approval. By using breast cancer detection rates for mammography alone, BSGI alone, and mammography plus BSGI from the study by Rhodes et al, as well as lifetime estimates of radiation-induced cancer mortality for mammography and BSGI on the basis of the Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report, the benefit-to-radiation risk ratios of mammography alone, BSGI alone, and mammography plus BSGI performed annually over 10-year age intervals from ages 40 to 79 years are estimated. Results The benefit-to-radiation risk ratio is estimated to be 13 for women who are 40-49 years old and are screened with mammography, a figure that approximately doubles for each subsequent 10-year age interval up to 70-79 years old. For low-dose BSGI, annual screening benefit-to-radiation risk ratios are estimated to be 5 for women 40-49 years old and to double by age 70-79 years, while mammography plus BSGI has benefit-to-radiation risk ratios similar to those of BSGI alone. There are wide ranges for all of these estimates. Conclusion While lower dose (300 MBq) BSGI has estimated benefit-to-radiation risk ratios well in excess of 1 for screening of asymptomatic women with dense breasts who are 40 years old and older, it does not match the benefit-to-radiation risk ratio of screening mammography. © RSNA, 2016.

Rationale and Objectives: This work aimed to study the effects of scanner model and study protocol on radiation dose received by breast tissues from 64-slice computed tomography (CT) studies., Materials and Methods: Four scanner models and three study protocols were used in scanning an anthropomorphic phantom with breast modules. Each protocol follows recommendations or guidelines from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the American College of Radiology. Twenty thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed inside the breast modules to measure breast tissue doses. Both the absolute and the normalized breast tissue doses were analyzed., Results: The mean glandular doses of a lung cancer screening CT, a chest/abdomen/pelvis CT, and a virtual colonoscopy CT are equivalent to less than 1, 5-7, and 1-3 two-view digital mammograms, respectively, for a standard-sized patient. The normalized breast dose differs significantly (P < 0.01) between lung cancer screening CT and chest/abdomen/pelvis CT; however, it shows less than ±10% variation among scanner models for the same protocol. In virtual colonoscopy CT, breast tissue dose decreases with the distance between local tissues to the edge of the x-ray field, although the decreasing trend varies for different scanner models and protocol settings., Conclusions: When breasts are entirely included in the primary x-ray field, breast dose by 64-slice CT is mainly protocol dependent, with the normalized breast dose about 15% lower for protocols with modulated mA than for those with constant mA; when breasts are only partially included in the primary beam field, breast dose by 64-slice CT is dependent on both the scanner model and the protocol settings., (Copyright © 2016 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In this article, we evaluate the implications of recent Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling of benefits and harms of screening to women 40-49 years old using annual digital mammography., Conclusion: We show that adding annual digital mammography of women 40-49 years old to biennial screening of women 50-74 years old increases lives saved by 27% and life-years gained by 47%. Annual digital mammography in women 40-49 years old saves 42% more lives and life-years than biennial digital mammography. The number needed to screen to save one life (NNS) with annual digital mammography in women 40-49 years old is 588.

Background: Mammographic screening is expected to decrease the incidence of late-stage breast cancer. In the current study, the authors determined the decrease in late-stage cancer incidence and the changes in invasive cancer incidence that occurred in the mammographic era after adjusting for prescreening temporal trends., Methods: Breast cancer incidence and stage data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. The premammography period (1977-1979) was compared with the mammographic screening period (2007-2009) for women aged ≥ 40 years. The authors estimated prescreening temporal trends using 5 measures of annual percentage change (APC). Stage-specific incidence values from 1977 through 1979 (baseline) were adjusted using APC values of 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.3%, and 2.0% and then compared with observed stage-specific incidence in 2007 through 2009., Results: Prescreening APC temporal trend estimates ranged from 0.8% to 2.3%. The joinpoint estimate of 1.3% for women aged ≥ 40 years approximated the 4-decade long APC trend of 1.2% noted in the Connecticut Tumor Registry. At an APC of 1.3%, late-stage breast cancer incidence decreased by 37% (56 cases per 100,000 women) with a reciprocal increase in early-stage rates noted from 1977 through 1979 to 2007 through 2009. Resulting late-stage cancer incidence decreased from 21% at an APC of 0.5% to 48% at an APC of 2.0%. Total invasive breast cancer incidence decreased by 9% (27 cases per 100,000 women) at an APC of 1.3%., Conclusions: There is evidence that a substantial reduction in late-stage breast cancer has occurred in the mammography era when appropriate adjustments are made for prescreening temporal trends. At background APC estimates of ≥ 1%, the total invasive breast cancer incidence also decreased., (© 2014 American Cancer Society.)

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demands the competing factors of high spatial resolution, good temporal resolution, high signal-to-noise ratios, and complete bilateral breast coverage. Achieving these competing factors requires modern MRI equipment with high magnetic field strength and homogeneity, high maximum gradient strength with short rise times, dedicated multichannel bilateral breast coils with prone patient positioning, and 3D (volume) gradient-echo MRI pulse sequences with short TR, short TE, high spatial resolution, and reasonably short acquisition times. This article discusses the equipment and pulse sequences needed to achieve high-quality breast MRI and summarizes requirements of the ACR Breast MRI Accreditation Program., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the clinical value of combining one-view mammography (cranio-caudal, CC) with the complementary view tomosynthesis (mediolateral-oblique, MLO) in comparison to standard two-view mammography (MX) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization., Methods: A free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) experiment was conducted independently by six breast radiologists, obtaining data from 463 breasts of 250 patients. Differences in mean lesion detection fraction (LDF) and mean lesion characterization fraction (LCF) were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare clinical performance of the combination of techniques to standard two-view digital mammography., Results: The 463 cases (breasts) reviewed included 258 with one to three lesions each, and 205 with no lesions. The 258 cases with lesions included 77 cancers in 68 breasts and 271 benign lesions to give a total of 348 proven lesions. The combination, DBT(MLO)+MX(CC), was superior to MX (CC+MLO) in both lesion detection (LDF) and lesion characterization (LCF) overall and for benign lesions. DBT(MLO)+MX(CC) was non-inferior to two-view MX for malignant lesions., Conclusions: This study shows that readers' capabilities in detecting and characterizing breast lesions are improved by combining single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and single-view mammography compared to two-view digital mammography., Key Points: • Digital breast tomosynthesis is becoming adopted as an adjunct to mammography (MX) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion detection (overall and benign lesions) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in cancer detection • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion characterization (overall and benign lesions) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in characterization of malignant lesions.

Objective: To determine the performance of combined single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view cranio-caudal (CC) mammography (MX) compared with that of standard two-view digital mammography., Methods: A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) study was conducted, involving six breast radiologists. Two hundred fifty patients underwent bilateral MX and DBT imaging. MX and DBT images with the adjunct of the CC-MX view from 469 breasts were evaluated and rated independently by six readers. Differences in mean areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), mean sensitivity and mean specificity were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess clinical performance., Results: The combined technique was found to be non-inferior to standard two-view mammography (MX((CC+MLO))) in mean AUC (difference: +0.021;95 % LCL = -0.011), but was not statistically significant for superiority (P = 0.197). The combined technique had equivalent sensitivity to standard mammography (76.2 % vs. 72.8 %, P = 0.269) and equivalent specificity (84.9 % vs. 83.0 %, P = 0.130). Specificity for benign lesions was significantly higher with the combination of techniques versus mammography (45.6 % vs. 36.8 %, P = 0.002)., Conclusion: In this enriched study population, the combination of single-view MLO tomosynthesis plus single-view CC mammography was non-inferior to that of standard two-view digital mammography in terms of ROC curve area, sensitivity and specificity.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the sensitivities and false-detection rates of two computer-aided detection (CADe) systems when applied to digital or film-screen mammograms in detecting the known breast cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) breast cancer screening population., Materials and Methods: Available film-screen and digital mammograms of 161 breast cancer cases from DMIST were analyzed by two CADe systems, iCAD Second-Look and R2 ImageChecker. Three experienced breast-imaging radiologists reviewed the CADe marks generated for each available cancer case, recording the number and locations of CADe marks and whether each CADe mark location corresponded with the known location of the cancer., Results: For the 161 cancer cases included in this study, the sensitivities of the DMIST reader without CAD were 0.43 (69/161, 95% CI 0.35-0.51) for digital and 0.41 (66/161, 0.33-0.49) for film-screen mammography. The sensitivities of iCAD were 0.74 (119/161, 0.66-0.81) for digital and 0.69 (111/161, 0.61-0.76) for film-screen mammography, both significantly higher than the DMIST study sensitivities (p < 0.0001 for both). The average number of false CADe marks per case of iCAD was 2.57 (SD, 1.92) for digital and 3.06(1.72) for film-screen mammography. The sensitivity of R2 was 0.74 (119/161, 0.66-0.81) for digital, and 0.60 (97/161, 0.52-0.68) for film-screen mammography, both significantly higher than the DMIST study sensitivities (p < 0.0001 for both). The average number of false CADe marks per case of R2 was 2.07 (1.57) for digital and 1.52 (1.45) for film-screen mammography., Conclusion: Our results suggest the use of CADe in interpretation of digital and film-screen mammograms could lead to improvements in cancer detection.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) ± ultrasonography (US) with the diagnostic accuracy of MX ± US alone., Methods: One hundred ten consenting women with 148 breast lesions (84 malignant, 64 benign) underwent two-view dual-energy CEDM in addition to MX and US using a specially modified digital mammography system (Senographe DS, GE Healthcare). Reference standard was histology for 138 lesions and follow-up for 12 lesions. Six radiologists from 4 institutions interpreted the images using high-resolution softcopy workstations. Confidence of presence (5-point scale), probability of cancer (7-point scale), and BI-RADS scores were evaluated for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve areas were estimated for each reader and overall. Visibility of findings on MX ± CEDM and MX ± US was evaluated with a Likert scale., Results: The average per-lesion sensitivity across all readers was significantly higher for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US (0.78 vs. 0.71 using BIRADS, p = 0.006). All readers improved their clinical performance and the average area under the ROC curve was significantly superior for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US ((0.87 vs 0.83, p = 0.045). Finding visibility was similar or better on MX ± CEDM than MX ± US in 80% of cases., Conclusions: Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to MX ± US improves diagnostic accuracy compared to MX ± US alone. Addition of iodinated contrast agent to MX facilitates the visualization of breast lesions.

Objective: The purpose of this article is to discuss recent media reports that have suggested a link between mammography and increased incidence of thyroid cancer in women. Those reports have caused many requests that a thyroid shield be used during mammography., Conclusion: On the basis of a previously published study that investigated organ doses from mammography and of cancer risk estimates using the seventh Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation report, we contend that thyroid shielding during mammography is unnecessary and may increase retakes rather than afford radiation protection of the thyroid.

Objective: The purpose of our study was to estimate the number of women needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one breast cancer death and the number needed to screen per life-year gained (NNS/LYG) with annual or biennial screening mammography and to compare NNS to the number needed to invite (NNI) to a screening trial to prevent one breast cancer death., Materials and Methods: Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling results commissioned by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for their 2009 update of breast cancer screening recommendations were used to estimate NNS and NNS/LYG with annual or biennial screening mammography. NNS values were compared with NNI as reported by USPSTF, which used the CISNET results to aid their 2009 recommendation of starting age and screening interval., Results: For women between the ages of 40 and 49 years undergoing annual screening mammography, CISNET modeling results estimate an NNS of 746, 39% of the NNI of 1904 estimated by USPSTF on the basis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. The NNS based on CISNET results for women between 50 and 59 years is 351 (26% of the NNI of 1339 estimated by USPSTF from RCT data), for women between 60 and 69 years is 233 (62% of the NNI of 377 estimated by USPSTF from RCT data), and for women between 70 and 79 years is 377. Annual screening of women between 40 and 84 years yields an NNS of 84 and an NNS/LYG of 5.3. Biennial screening of women ages 50-74 yields an NNS of 144 and an NNS/LYG of 9.1., Conclusion: The NNS based on CISNET modeling results is much smaller than the NNI based on RCT data. Eighty-four women need to be screened annually between 40 and 84 years to save one life from breast cancer and 5.3 need to be screened annually to gain 1 life-year from breast cancer.

Objective: The purpose of this article is to examine the scientific evidence considered by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in recommending against screening mammography in women 40-49 years old and against annual screening mammography in women 50 and older. We use evidence made available to the USPSTF to estimate the benefits and "harms" of screening mammography in women 40 years old and older. We use Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network modeling to compare lives saved by different screening scenarios and the summary of evidence prepared for the USPSTF to estimate the frequency of harms of screening mammography by age., Conclusion: Averaged over the six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network models of benefit, screening mammography shows greatest benefit--a 39.6% mortality reduction--from annual screening of women 40-84 years old. This screening regimen saves 71% more lives than the USPSTF-recommended regimen of biennial screening of women 50-74 years old, which had a 23.2% mortality reduction. For U.S. women currently 30-39 years old, annual screening mammography from ages 40-84 years would save 99,829 more lives than USPSTF recommendations if all women comply, and 64,889 more lives with the current 65% compliance rate. The potential harms of a screening examination in women 40-49 years old, on average, consist of the risk of a recall for diagnostic workup every 12 years, a negative biopsy every 149 years, a missed breast cancer every 1,000 years, and a fatal radiation-induced breast cancer every 76,000-97,000 years. Evidence made available to the USPSTF strongly supports the mortality benefit of annual screening mammography beginning at age 40 years, whereas potential harms of screening with this regimen are minor.

Purpose: To compare radiation doses and lifetime attributable risks (LARs) of radiation-induced cancer incidence and mortality from breast imaging studies involving the use of ionizing radiation., Materials and Methods: Recent literature on radiation doses from radiologic procedures and organ doses from nuclear medicine procedures, along with Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII age-dependent risk data, is used to estimate LARs of radiation-induced cancer incidence and mortality from breast imaging studies involving ionizing radiation, including screen-film mammography, digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, dedicated breast computed tomography, breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI), and positron emission mammography (PEM)., Results: Two-view digital mammography and screen-film mammography involve average mean glandular radiation doses of 3.7 and 4.7 mGy, respectively. According to BEIR VII data, these studies are associated, respectively, with LARs of fatal breast cancer of 1.3 and 1.7 cases per 100,000 women aged 40 years at exposure and less than one case per one million women aged 80 years at exposure. Annual screening digital or screen-film mammography performed in women aged 40-80 years is associated with an LAR of fatal breast cancer of 20-25 cases in 100,000. A single BSGI study involving a label-recommended dose of 740-1100 MBq (20-30 mCi) of technetium 99m-sestamibi is estimated to involve an LAR of fatal cancer that is 20-30 times that of digital mammography in women aged 40 years. A single PEM study involving a labeled dose of 370 MBq (10 mCi) of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose is estimated to involve an LAR of fatal cancer that is 23 times higher than that of digital mammography in women aged 40 years., Conclusion: A single BSGI or PEM study is associated with a fatal radiation-induced cancer risk higher than or comparable to that of annual screening mammography in women aged 40-80 years.

Mammographic breast density has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint in breast cancer prevention studies, but little is known about its variability over time, particularly in relation to menstrual cycle phase. The purpose of this study was to assess variation in breast density on digital mammograms using quantitative and qualitative density measures. Menstrual cycle phase was determined by salivary estradiol and progesterone assays. 73 healthy subjects with regular menses had 1-3 mammograms with paired saliva collection during a 12-month period. The mean difference in density as a percentage of the mean density was calculated for follicular-luteal (n = 50), luteal-luteal (n = 26) and follicular-follicular (n = 23) pairs in the same woman using the same breast. Two density measures (measurement of dense area and BIRADS) were used. The mean luteal density exceeded the mean follicular density by 7.1-9.2%, but density differences between luteal pairs and follicular pairs did not exceed 5%. The intraclass correlation for measurement of dense area was greater than 85% in all phases of the menstrual cycle, but was below 50% for BIRADS for luteal-follicular and follicular-follicular pairs. Our study provides estimates of the amount of variation in mammographic density during the menstrual cycle, and that inherent in repeated density measurement in premenopausal women, and suggests that menstrual phase of mammographic evaluation should be controlled for in intervention studies where density is being used as a surrogate measure.

Objective: The purpose of our study was to compare the technical performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography., Materials and Methods: The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial enrolled 49,528 women to compare FFDM and screen-film mammography for screening. For quality assurance purposes, technical parameters including breast compression force, compressed breast thickness, mean glandular dose, and the number of additional views needed for complete breast coverage were recorded and analyzed for both FFDM and screen-film mammography on approximately 10% of study subjects at each site., Results: Technical data were compiled on 5,102 study subjects at 33 sites. Clean data were obtained for 4,366 (88%) of those cases. Mean compression force was 10.7 dN for screen-film mammography and 10.1 dN for FFDM (5.5% difference, p < 0.001). Mean compressed breast thickness was 5.3 cm for screen-film mammography and 5.4 cm for FFDM (1.7% difference, p < 0.001). Mean glandular dose per view averaged 2.37 mGy for screen-film mammography and 1.86 mGy for FFDM, 22% lower for digital than screen-film mammography, with sizeable variations among digital manufacturers. Twelve percent of screen-film mammography cases required more than the normal four views, whereas 21% of FFDM cases required more than the four normal views to cover all breast tissue. When extra views were included, mean glandular dose per subject was 4.15 mGy for FFDM and 4.98 mGy for screen-film mammography, 17% lower for FFDM than screen-film mammography., Conclusion: Our results show that differences between screen-film mammography and FFDM in compression force and indicated compressed breast thickness were small. On average, FFDM had 22% lower mean glandular dose than screen-film mammography per acquired view, with sizeable variations in average FFDM doses by manufacturer.

Objective: We show with both a clinical case and measurements using the American College of Radiology mammography phantom that some digital mammography acquisition and image display combinations lead to both marked over- and underestimation of lesion sizes on geometrically magnified images., Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the accuracy of lesion size measurements in all magnification modes should be a routine quality control acceptance test with each acquisition-display system combination in digital mammography.