Search

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

BackgroundWomen screened with digital mammography may receive false-positive and false-negative results and subsequent imaging and biopsies. How these outcomes vary by age, time since the last screening, and individual risk factors is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine factors associated with false-positive and false-negative digital mammography results, additional imaging, and biopsies among a general population of women screened for breast cancer.DesignAnalysis of registry data.SettingParticipating facilities at 5 U.S. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium breast imaging registries with linkages to pathology databases and tumor registries.Patients405,191 women aged 40 to 89 years screened with digital mammography between 2003 and 2011. A total of 2963 were diagnosed with invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ within 12 months of screening.MeasurementsRates of false-positive and false-negative results and recommendations for additional imaging and biopsies from a single screening round; comparisons by age, time since the last screening, and risk factors.ResultsRates of false-positive results (121.2 per 1000 women [95% CI, 105.6 to 138.7]) and recommendations for additional imaging (124.9 per 1000 women [CI, 109.3 to 142.3]) were highest among women aged 40 to 49 years and decreased with increasing age. Rates of false-negative results (1.0 to 1.5 per 1000 women) and recommendations for biopsy (15.6 to 17.5 per 1000 women) did not differ greatly by age. Results did not differ by time since the last screening. False-positive rates were higher for women with risk factors, particularly family history of breast cancer; previous benign breast biopsy result; high breast density; and, for younger women, low body mass index.LimitationsConfounding by variation in patient-level characteristics and outcomes across registries and regions may have been present. Some factors, such as numbers of first- and second-degree relatives with breast cancer and diagnoses associated with previous benign biopsy results, were not examined.ConclusionFalse-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common, particularly for younger women and those with risk factors, whereas biopsies occur less often. Rates of false-negative results are low.Primary funding sourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Cancer Institute.

Delivery of screening mammography differs substantially between the United States (US) and Denmark. We evaluated whether there are differences in screening sensitivity and specificity. We included screens from women screened at age 50-69 years during 1996-2008/2009 in the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (n = 2,872,791), and from two population-based mammography screening programs in Denmark (Copenhagen, n = 148,156 and Funen, n = 275,553). Women were followed-up for 1 year. For initial screens, recall rate was significantly higher in BCSC (17.6%) than in Copenhagen (4.3%) and Funen (3.1%). Sensitivity was fairly similar in BCSC (91.8%) and Copenhagen (90.5%) and Funen (92.5%). At subsequent screens, recall rates were 8.8%, 1.8% and 1.4% in BCSC, Copenhagen and Funen, respectively. The BCSC sensitivity (82.3%) was lower compared with that in Copenhagen (88.9%) and Funen (86.9%), but when stratified by time since last screen, the sensitivity was similar. For both initial and subsequent screenings, the specificity of screening in BCSC (83.2% and 91.6%) was significantly lower than that in Copenhagen (96.6% and 98.8%) and Funen (97.9% and 99.2%). By taking time since last screen into account, it was found that American and Danish women had the same probability of having their asymptomatic cancers detected at screening. However, the majority of women free of asymptomatic cancers experienced more harms in terms of false-positive findings in the US than in Denmark.

IntroductionIn the United States (US), about one-half of women screened with annual mammography have at least one false-positive test after ten screens. The estimate for European women screened ten times biennially is much lower. We evaluate to what extent screening interval, mammogram type, and statistical methods, can explain the reported differences.MethodsWe included all screens from women first screened at age 50-69 years in the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (n=99,455) between 1996-2010, and from two population-based mammography screening programs in Denmark (n=230,452 and n=400,204), between 1991-2012 and 1993-2013, respectively. Model-based cumulative false-positive risks were computed for the entire sample, using two statistical methods (Hubbard Njor) previously used to estimate false-positive risks in the US and Europe.ResultsEmpirical cumulative risk of at least one false-positive test after eight (annual or biennial) screens was 41.9% in BCSC, 16.1% in Copenhagen, and 7.4% in Funen. Variation in screening interval and mammogram type did not explain the differences by country. Using the Hubbard method, the model-based cumulative risks after eight screens was 45.1% in BCSC, 9.6% in Copenhagen, and 8.8% in Funen. Using the Njor method, these risks were estimated to be 43.6, 10.9 and 8.0%.ConclusionChoice of statistical method, screening interval and mammogram type does not explain the substantial differences in cumulative false-positive risk between the US and Europe.

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

BackgroundEndogenous hormones and growth factors that increase mammographic breast density could increase ovarian cancer risk. We examined whether high breast density is associated with ovarian cancer risk.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study of 724,603 women aged 40 to 79 years with 2,506,732 mammograms participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium from 1995 to 2009. Incident epithelial ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 1373 women. We used partly conditional Cox regression to estimate the association between breast density and 5-year risk of incident epithelial ovarian cancer overall and stratified by 10-year age group. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsCompared with women with scattered fibroglandular densities, women with heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue had 20% and 18% increased 5-year risk of incident epithelial ovarian cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06 to 1.36; HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.50, respectively; P(trend) = .01). Among women aged 50 to 59 years, we observed a trend in elevated risk associated with increased breast density (P(trend) = .02); women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breast tissue had 30% (HR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.64) and 65% (HR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.44) increased risk, respectively, compared with women with scattered fibroglandular densities. The pattern was similar but not statistically significant at age 40 to 49 years. There were no consistent patterns of breast density and ovarian cancer risk at age 60 to 79 years.ConclusionsDense breast tissue was associated with a modest increase in 5-year ovarian cancer risk in women aged 50 to 59 years but was not associated with ovarian cancer at ages 40 to 49 or 60 to 79 years.

PURPOSE We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance. METHODS Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76). CONCLUSIONS Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation. Key words: primary health care; cardiovascular disease; quality improvement; chronic illness; prevention; health promotion; quantitative methods; health services; organizational change; practice-based research, INTRODUCTION Past efforts to transform primary care have included practice redesign based on medical home principles and adoption of electronic health records. (1-4) More recently, primary care practices face increasing [...]

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

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

BackgroundBenign breast disease and high breast density are prevalent, strong risk factors for breast cancer. Women with both risk factors may be at very high risk.MethodsWe included 42818 women participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who had no prior diagnosis of breast cancer and had undergone at least one benign breast biopsy and mammogram; 1359 women developed incident breast cancer in 6.1 years of follow-up (78.1% invasive, 21.9% ductal carcinoma in situ). We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression analysis. The referent group was women with nonproliferative changes and average density. All P values are two-sided.ResultsBenign breast disease and breast density were independently associated with breast cancer. The combination of atypical hyperplasia and very high density was uncommon (0.6% of biopsies) but was associated with the highest risk for breast cancer (HR = 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.52 to 8.09, P < .001). Proliferative disease without atypia (25.6% of biopsies) was associated with elevated risk that varied little across levels of density: average (HR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.69, P = .003), high (HR = 2.02; 95% CI = 1.68 to 2.44, P < .001), or very high (HR = 2.05; 95% CI = 1.54 to 2.72, P < .001). Low breast density (4.5% of biopsies) was associated with low risk (HRs

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

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

Background Examining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts. Methods We evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score–matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy. Results Screen-detected early stage cancer rates were statistically higher for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (9.3 vs 2.9; difference = 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5 to 10.3) and dense (7.5 vs 3.5; difference = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.7) breasts and for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for dense breasts (19.2 vs 7.5; difference = 11.7, 95% CI = 4.6 to 18.8). Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (0.8 vs 0.5; difference = 0.4, 95% CI = -0.8 to 1.6) or dense breasts (1.5 vs 1.4; difference = 0.0, 95% CI = -1.2 to 1.3), nor were advanced cancer rates. Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for nondense (2.6 vs 0.8; difference = 1.8 (95% CI = -2.0 to 5.5) or dense breasts (0.6 vs 1.5; difference = -0.9, 95% CI = -2.5 to 0.7), nor were advanced cancer rates. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendation rates were statistically higher for MRI groups than mammography alone. Conclusion MRI screening with or without mammography increased rates of screen-detected early stage cancer and false-positives for women with dense breasts without a concomitant decrease in advanced or interval cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cancer risk prediction may be subject to detection bias if utilization of screening is related to cancer risk factors. We examine detection bias when predicting breast cancer risk by race/ethnicity. Methods: We used screening and diagnosis histories from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to estimate risk of breast cancer onset and calculated relative risk of onset and diagnosis for each racial/ethnic group compared with non-Hispanic White women. Results: Of 104,073 women aged 40–54 receiving their first screening mammogram at a Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facility between 2000 and 2018, 10.2% (n = 10,634) identified as Asian, 10.9% (n = 11,292) as Hispanic, and 8.4% (n = 8719) as non-Hispanic Black. Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women had slightly lower screening frequencies but biopsy rates following a positive mammogram were similar across groups. Risk of cancer diagnosis was similar for non-Hispanic Black and White women (relative risk vs non-Hispanic White = 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14) but was lower for Asian (relative risk = 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.97) and Hispanic women (relative risk = 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08). Relative risks of disease onset were 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88), 0.70 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.83), and 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.09) for Asian, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black women, respectively. Conclusions: Racial/ethnic differences in mammography and biopsy utilization did not induce substantial detection bias; relative risks of disease onset were similar to or modestly different than relative risks of diagnosis. Asian and Hispanic women have lower risks of developing breast cancer than non-Hispanic Black and White women, who have similar risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are no consensus guidelines for supplemental breast cancer screening with whole‐breast ultrasound. However, criteria for women at high risk of mammography screening failures (interval invasive cancer or advanced cancer) have been identified. Mammography screening failure risk was evaluated among women undergoing supplemental ultrasound screening in clinical practice compared with women undergoing mammography alone. Methods: A total of 38,166 screening ultrasounds and 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening were identified during 2014–2020 within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Risk of interval invasive cancer and advanced cancer were determined using BCSC prediction models. High interval invasive breast cancer risk was defined as heterogeneously dense breasts and BCSC 5‐year breast cancer risk ≥2.5% or extremely dense breasts and BCSC 5‐year breast cancer risk ≥1.67%. Intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was defined as BCSC 6‐year advanced breast cancer risk ≥0.38%. Results: A total of 95.3% of 38,166 ultrasounds were among women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, compared with 41.8% of 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening (p <.0001). Among women with dense breasts, high interval invasive breast cancer risk was prevalent in 23.7% of screening ultrasounds compared with 18.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30–1.39); intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was prevalent in 32.0% of screening ultrasounds versus 30.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental screening (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89–0.94). Conclusions: Ultrasound screening was highly targeted to women with dense breasts, but only a modest proportion were at high mammography screening failure risk. A clinically significant proportion of women undergoing mammography screening alone were at high mammography screening failure risk. Whole‐breast ultrasound screening is highly targeted to women with dense breasts, but only a modest proportion are at high risk of interval or advanced breast cancer. Consideration of other breast cancer risk factors beyond breast density could facilitate identification of women at high risk of mammography screening failures who may be appropriate for supplemental ultrasound screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Ginkgo biloba (G biloba), an herbal product in reducing and preventing cognitive decline in the elderly. Results indicated that there were no benefits of consumption of G biloba in reducing cognitive decline.