Search

Feedback to physicians on their clinical performance is critical to continuous learning and maintenance of skills as well as maintaining patient safety. However, it is fraught with challenges around both implementation and acceptance. Additionally, rewarding of performance improvement is not often done, putting into question the efficacy of the process. Physician audit and feedback have been studied extensively and shown to be beneficial in many fields of medicine. Documenting physician performance and sharing individual and group data have been positively linked to changing physician behavior, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes. Although casual review of one’s own performance is often the easiest approach, it is frequently over- or underestimated by self-evaluation. Objective measures are therefore important to provide concrete data on which physicians can act. A fundamental question remains in mammography: Is reporting the information to the physician and accreditation bodies enough, or should there be consequences for the radiologist and/or facility if there is outlier behavior?

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality; however, when used to examine women with dense breasts, its performance and resulting benefits are reduced. Increased breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), molecular breast imaging (MBI), MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) each have shown improved cancer detection in dense breasts when compared with 2D digital mammography (DM). DBT is the preferred mammographic technique for producing a simultaneous reduction in recalls (i.e., additional imaging). US further increases cancer detection after DM or DBT and reduces interval cancers (cancers detected in the interval between recommended screening examinations), but it also produces substantial additional false-positive findings. MBI improves cancer detection with an effective radiation dose that is approximately fourfold that of DM or DBT but is still within accepted limits. MRI provides the greatest increase in cancer detection and reduces interval cancers and late-stage disease; abbreviated techniques will reduce cost and improve availability. CEM appears to offer performance similar to that of MRI, but further validation is needed. Dense breast notification will soon be a national standard; therefore, understanding the performance of mammography and supplemental modalities is necessary to optimize screening for women with dense breasts.

The aim of this study was to quantify the initial decline and subsequent rebound in breast cancer screening metrics throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Screening and diagnostic mammographic examinations, biopsies performed, and cancer diagnoses were extracted from the ACR National Mammography Database from March 1, 2019, through May 31, 2021. Patient (race and age) and facility (regional location, community type, and facility type) demographics were collected. Three time periods were used for analysis: pre-COVID-19 (March 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019), peak COVID-19 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), and COVID-19 recovery (March 1, 2021, to May 31, 2021). Analysis was performed at the facility level and overall between time periods.In total, 5,633,783 screening mammographic studies, 1,282,374 diagnostic mammographic studies, 231,390 biopsies, and 69,657 cancer diagnoses were analyzed. All peak COVID-19 metrics were less than pre-COVID-19 volumes: 36.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 57.9% for diagnostic mammography, 47.3% for biopsies, and 48.7% for cancer diagnoses. There was some rebound during COVID-19 recovery as a percentage of pre-COVID-19 volumes: 85.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 97.8% for diagnostic mammography, 91.5% for biopsies, and 92.0% for cancer diagnoses. Across various metrics, there was a disproportionate negative impact on older women, Asian women, facilities in the Northeast, and facilities affiliated with academic medical centers.COVID-19 had the greatest impact on screening mammography volumes, which have not returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Cancer diagnoses declined significantly in the acute phase and have not fully rebounded, emphasizing the need to increase outreach efforts directed at specific patient population and facility types.

Objective To review a single institution’s second opinion breast imaging process, data tracking, and metrics before and after implementing quality improvement changes and the effect on report turnaround time. Methods This Institutional Review Board approved retrospective quality improvement project was performed at a tertiary-care academic medical center and included patients 18 years or older who submitted their outside facility imaging for reinterpretation (any combination of mammography, breast ultrasonography, and/or magnetic resonance imaging performed within the last six months) with finalized second opinion reports between June 1, 2016, and July 17, 2017. Significant intradepartmental changes were implemented March 2017 with the goal to improve second opinion report turnaround time. Key metrics from 399 studies were analyzed before and after implemented changes. Two-sided Fisher’s exact test was used to assess the significance of results. Results After department interventions, the percentage of outside reports available at the time of surgical consultation improved from 82% (213/259) to 91% (127/140), an 11% improvement (P < 0.05). The average number of days from initial second opinion consultation to the availability of final report improved from 10.2 days to 9 days, a 12% improvement. Prior to the changes, the number of days it took a radiologist to complete a report varied from 1 to 4 days, but afterwards was consistently 1 day or less. Conclusion Implementation of second opinion intradepartmental changes demonstrated a significant improvement in report turnaround time and the number of finalized reports available at the time of surgical consultation. An efficient second opinion process is crucial to a breast imaging center, as it ultimately expedites patient surgical and oncological care.

This article does not include an abstract. Please see the accompanying Point by Lyndsay D. Viers and Katie N. Hunt.

The scroll bar on digital breast tomosynthesis has become an imperative tool that breast imaging radiologists rely on for help in identify lesions on the orthogonal view, targeting breast ultrasound, and performing challenging biopsies for one-view findings. The ability to predict the lesion location using the scroll bar not only saves time in the diagnostic setting but also reduces screening recalls when a finding can be confirmed as dermal. It is important, however, to recognize settings in which the location prediction can be misleading, such as for lesions in thin breast tissue or the anterior portion of the breast or if the breast is not appropriately positioned. In these situations, radiologists can use other diagnostic tools for problem solving.

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.

Letter to the Editor on article by Dinh et al- response to the authors comments on " Is it ethical to incentivize mammography screening in Medicaid populations? - A policy review and conceptual analysis".

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality; however, when used to examine women with dense breasts, its performance and resulting benefits are reduced. Increased breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), molecular breast imaging (MBI), MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) each have shown improved cancer detection in dense breasts when compared with 2D digital mammography (DM). DBT is the preferred mammographic technique for producing a simultaneous reduction in recalls (i.e., additional imaging). US further increases cancer detection after DM or DBT and reduces interval cancers (cancers detected in the interval between recommended screening examinations), but it also produces substantial additional false-positive findings. MBI improves cancer detection with an effective radiation dose that is approximately fourfold that of DM or DBT but is still within accepted limits. MRI provides the greatest increase in cancer detection and reduces interval cancers and late-stage disease; abbreviated techniques will reduce cost and improve availability. CEM appears to offer performance similar to that of MRI, but further validation is needed. Dense breast notification will soon be a national standard; therefore, understanding the performance of mammography and supplemental modalities is necessary to optimize screening for women with dense breasts.

Background: Invasive melanoma, a lethal form of skin cancer, is the seventh most common cancer in women. Factors such as a history of indoor tanning or sunburn and a personal or family history of skin cancer increase a woman’s risk of developing a melanoma. Objective: Because the majority of melanomas occur in patients age 40 years or older, which is the age that is recommended for women to begin screening mammograms, the mammogram experience could be used to promote early detection of melanoma by introducing skin self-examinations (SSE) to a population of women who are already invested in preventive health. Methods: This was a pilot and feasibility study that was designed to promote the early detection of melanoma among women who undergo a mammogram at the Lynn Sage Breast Center at the Northwestern Medicine/Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. The study was conducted in three phases: development of the materials, delivery of the program, and assessment of the program effectiveness. Results: Eighty six percent of women with scheduled mammogram appointments participated in the study (n = 560). Among these women, 68% noticed the SSE information in the changing rooms, 78% thought the information applied to them, and 68% identified with at least one of the risk factors for melanoma. Twenty percent of the patients checked their skin in the changing room, 13% noticed a concerning mole, and 60% of those women who noted a concerning lesion stated their intent to see a dermatologist for further evaluation. Conclusion: A large proportion of the women in our study had risk factors for developing a melanoma and noticed the SSE information in the screening center. Placing an intervention to encourage methods for the early detection of melanoma in an outpatient mammography environment is an effective strategy to increase awareness in a large proportion of at-risk women. Keywords: melanoma, skin self-examination, skin cancer screening, mammogram

We compared the performance characteristics of 297,629 full field digital (FFDM) and 416,791 screen film mammograms (SFM). Sensitivity increased with age, decreased with breast density, and was lower for more aggressive and lobular tumors. While sensitivity did not differ significantly by modality, specificity was generally 1–2 percentage points higher for FFDM than for SFM across age and breast density categories. The lower recall rate for FFDM vs. SFM in our study may partially explain performance differences by modality. In this large healthcare organization, modest gains in performance were achieved with the introduction of FFDM as a replacement for SFM.

Compared to non-Latina (nL) white women, nL black women are diagnosed with more aggressive breast cancers, which in turn should be more likely to go undetected on screening mammography and subsequently arise as interval breast cancer (IBC). We sought to estimate the extent of an anticipated racial disparity in IBC within a single, large health care organization.The present analysis focuses on 4357 breast cancers diagnosed between 2001 and 2012 and within 18 months of a screening mammogram (N = 714,218). We used logistic regression with model-based standardization (predictive margins) to estimate adjusted prevalence differences corresponding to a racial disparity in IBC.Overall, prevalence of IBC within 18 months was 20.7%. Contrary to expectation, in patient-adjusted models, there was no IBC racial disparity (percentage point disparity = -2.1, 95% confidence interval: -4.7, 2.6). However, when controlling for facility characteristics, including proportion of nL black patients, the model coefficient for the IBC disparity reversed sign and changed substantially (P .0001) and a racial disparity emerged (percentage point disparity = +5.1, 95% confidence interval: -0.3, 9.9).The sorting of patients by race across facilities appears to have mitigated an otherwise anticipated disparity in IBC. Possible explanations are discussed.

To determine the effect of tomosynthesis imaging as a function of age for breast cancer screening. Screening performance metrics from 13 institutions were examined for 12 months prior to introduction of tomosynthesis (period 1) and compared to those after introduction of tomosynthesis (period 2, range 3–22 months). Screening metrics for women ages 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70+ , included rates per 1000 screens for recalls, biopsies, cancers, and invasive cancers detected. Performance parameters were compared for women screened with digital mammography alone (n = 278,908) and digital mammography + tomosynthesis (n = 173,414). Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography produced significant reductions in recall rates for all age groups and significant increases in cancer detection rates for women 40–69. Largest recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis was for women 40–49, decreasing from 137 (95% CI 117–156) to 115 (95% CI 95–135); difference, −22 (95% CI −26 to −18; P

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly becoming the new standard of care for breast cancer screening. DBT has improved on the limitations of traditional digital mammography by increasing cancer detection and decreasing false-positive examinations. Interpretation of DBT is slightly different than digital mammography and therefore experience with the technology is paramount to achieve best performance. Examples of malignancies that should be recalled and benign findings that are safely called as benign are provided in this article. Additionally, practical interpretation methods and implementation protocols are explained.

Radiologists aspire to improve patient experience and engagement, as part of the Triple Aim of health reform. Patient engagement requires active partnerships among health providers and patients, and rigorous teamwork provides a mechanism for this. Patient and care team engagement are crucial at the time of cancer diagnosis and care initiation but are complicated by the necessity to orchestrate many interdependent consultations and care events in a short time. Radiology often serves as the patient entry point into the cancer care system, especially for breast cancer. It is uniquely positioned to play the value-adding role of facilitating patient and team engagement during cancer care initiation. The 4R approach (Right Information and Right Care to the Right Patient at the Right Time), previously proposed for optimizing teamwork and care delivery during cancer treatment, could be applied at the time of diagnosis. The 4R approach considers care for every patient with cancer as a project, using project management to plan and manage care interdependencies, assign clear responsibilities, and designate a quarterback function. The authors propose that radiology assume the quarterback function during breast cancer care initiation, developing the care initiation sequence, as a project care plan for newly diagnosed patients, and engaging patients and their care teams in timely, coordinated activities. After initial consultations and treatment plan development, the quarterback function is transitioned to surgery or medical oncology. This model provides radiologists with opportunities to offer value-added services and solidifies radiology's relevance in the evolving health care environment. To implement 4R at cancer care initiation, it will be necessary to change the radiology practice model to incorporate patient interaction and teamwork, develop 4R content and local adaption approaches, and enrich radiology training with relevant clinical knowledge, patient interaction competence, and teamwork skill set.

Introduction Racial disparities in breast cancer (BrCa) mortality are well documented. We previously reported that African American (AA) women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BrCa have a 4-fold higher rate of death compared to non-Hispanic whites (white) after controlling for stage at diagnosis and treatment initiation. This suggests that racial differences in tumor biology may contribute to the survival disparity. In preliminary work we found that AA BrCa cases have higher serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) compared to whites, and that increased CRP was associated with worse survival, suggesting that increased systemic inflammation in AA women drives aggressive tumor biology and contributes to the racial disparity in survival. The goal of this study is to identify specific inflammatory pathways that may be involved. Experimental Procedures Pre-treatment blood samples from women with stage I-III ER+ BrCa (AA, n=40; white, n=55) and from healthy controls (AA, n=51; white, n=38) were analyzed with the Olink® targeted proteomic assay, which measures 92 inflammatory proteins. Normalized data was log2 transformed, and generalized linear models compared the normalized intensities with covariates of interest. The fit of the model was tested with empirical Bayes methods. All p-values are corrected for multiple testing with the false discovery rate (FDR) method of Benjamini and Hochberg. Findings After adjustment for site of enrollment, plasma levels of 13 inflammatory cytokines showed a log2 fold-change (log2FC) ≥ 1.0 for AA compared to white women, i.e. at least a two-fold increase in the mean value on a linear scale (Table). The racial difference was evident among both cases and controls, and remained after adjusting for body mass index (BMI). There were no differences between AA cases and controls, indicating that cytokine elevation in AA BrCa patients is not an effect of the tumor. Several of the cytokines are known to promote tumor progression and aggressive biological features in breast tumors. ProteinLog2FCProteinLog2FCCXCL52.42**CCL81.13***CXCL12.06***EIF4EBP11.12**STAMBP1.91*CCL201.10**CXCL111.89**TNF141.06*CCL31.45**TGF beta1.04**CXCL61.40**CCL71.03***CCL131.16**FDR corrected p-values: * < 0.05, **< 0.01, ***< 0.001 Conclusion Systemic elevation of biologically relevant inflammatory cytokines in AA women with ER+ BrCa does not appear to be an effect of the tumor. This inflammatory phenotype may activate inflammatory programs in ER+ breast tumors that develop in AA women, leading to disproportionately aggressive tumor biology and worse outcomes. Supported by grants U54CA203000; U54CA2022995; and U54CA2022997 from the National Institutes of Health. Citation Format: Oana C. Danciu, George Chlipala, Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, Hariyali Patel, Landan Banks, Ayesha Zaidi, Ashlie Santaliz-Casiano, Lauren Schulte, Lauren Weller, Deanna Taiym, Natalie Pulliam, Elona Liko Hazizi, Elonia Martin, Anita Fareeduddin, Archana Bargaje, Carlos Garcia, Scott Hegerty, Sarah Friedewald, Seema Khan, J Julie Kim, William Gradishar, Garth Rauscher, Jonna Frasor, Kent F. Hoskins. Racial differences in circulating inflammatory cytokines and breast cancer disparities [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 1176.

The purposes of this article are to summarize breast cancer screening recommendations and discuss their differences and similarities and to explain the differences between two national databases to aid in interpretation of their benchmarks.The American College of Radiology, American Cancer Society, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all agree that annual mammography beginning at age 40 saves the most lives, and all acknowledge a woman's right to choose when to begin and stop screening. The National Mammography Database (NMD) differs from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium database in that it acquires data using the same approach used by almost all mammography facilities in the United States. Therefore, NMD benchmarks, which include standard metrics, provide more meaningful comparisons to help mammography facilities and radiologists improve performance.

The scroll bar on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is an important tool that facilitates localization of lesions on the orthogonal view. While this works well most of the time, occasionally the location of the lesion as directed by the scroll bar is seemingly inaccurate. There are five important reasons why the scroll bar indicator may suggest a contradictory lesion location. Understanding specific scenarios when this may occur will aid the reader in reconciling these differences.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly becoming the new standard of care for breast cancer screening. DBT has improved on the limitations of traditional digital mammography by increasing cancer detection and decreasing false-positive examinations. Interpretation of DBT is slightly different than digital mammography and therefore experience with the technology is paramount to achieve best performance. Examples of malignancies that should be recalled and benign findings that are safely called as benign are provided in this article. Additionally, practical interpretation methods and implementation protocols are explained.

Breast MRI is a highly sensitive imaging modality valuable for screening women at high risk for developing breast cancer and for diagnostic imaging, including evaluation of extent of disease in women with a known breast malignancy. The ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) developed a common language to describe MRI findings in a clear and concise manner, which led to the breast MRI lexicon. The language used in the lexicon not only allows standardized reporting and triggers appropriate management recommendations, but also facilitates communication between the radiologist and ordering physician.

Background: Experiencing a false positive (FP) screening mammogram is economically, physically, and emotionally burdensome, which may affect future screening behavior by delaying the next scheduled mammogram or by avoiding screening altogether. We sought to examine the impact of a FP screening mammogram on the subsequent screening mammography behavior. Methods: Delay in obtaining subsequent screening was defined as any mammogram performed more than 12 months from index mammogram. The Kaplan–Meier (product limit) estimator and Cox proportional hazards model were used to estimate the unadjusted delay and the hazard ratio (HR) of delay of the subsequent screening mammogram within the next 36 months from the index mammogram date. Results: A total of 650,232 true negative (TN) and 90,918 FP mammograms from 261,767 women were included. The likelihood of a subsequent mammogram was higher in women experiencing a TN result than women experiencing a FP result (85.0% vs. 77.9%, P < 0.001). The median delay in returning to screening was higher for FP versus TN (13 months vs. 3 months, P < 0.001). Women with TN result were 36% more likely to return to screening in the next 36 months compared with women with a FP result HR = 1.36 (95% CI, 1.35–1.37). Experiencing a FP mammogram increases the risk of late stage at diagnosis compared with prior TN mammogram (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Women with a FP mammogram were more likely to delay their subsequent screening compared with women with a TN mammogram. Impact: A prior FP experience may subsequently increase the 4-year cumulative risk of late stage at diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(3); 397–403. ©2017 AACR.

Liver transplantation is performed in adults and children to treat patients with irreversible liver damage when medical or other surgical treatment has failed. The most common indications for transplantation are cirrhosis secondary to fulminant acute hepatitis or chronic active hepatitis, sclerosing cholangitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, Budd-Chiari syndrome, inborn errors of metabolism, and unresectable but local hepatocellular carcinoma. This article reviews the sonographic findings in the preoperative evaluation of liver transplant recipients, briefly describes the surgical technique, and demonstrates normal postoperative findings in liver transplant recipients as well as complications associated with liver transplantation.

e18032 Background: The IOM ’11 and ’13 reports recommend a written care plan (WCP) at cancer diagnosisto enable teamwork and patient (pt) engagement. Standardized multimodality WCP is a key part of the 4R model of care planning and pt engagement proposed under “NCI ASCO Teams” Project (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R (Right Information / Care / Patient / Time) is under implementation at 3 centers: academic, community and safety net. As current state assessment prior to implementing 4R and standard multimodality WCP, we surveyed pts not impacted by 4R on care planning, enablement and whether they received any WCP. Methods: Survey of breast cancer stage I-III pts who received care at the three sites Jan ’15 - Mar ’16, prior to 4R. We used simple frequencies and Fisher’s exact test in analysis. Results: Survey response rate: 47%, 241/515. Gaps of > 30% were reported in 7 of 8 aspects of care planning and pt enablement - Table. A non standard WCP was received by 46% of pts. Receiving a WCP impacted whether pts were clear about care (85% with WCP vs 52% without, p < .0001), able to manage own care (79% with WCP vs 58% without, p = .0005) and overwhelmed (35% with WCP vs 49% without, p = .04). Care complexity was a significant factor for feeling overwhelmed by pts without WCP (49% of pts receiving > 6 care services felt overwhelmed vs. 30% of pts receiving < = 6 services, p = .04), but not a significant factor in pts with WCP (45% vs 41%, p = .7). More pts with WCP reported well managed care by providers than pts without WCP (77%, 62%, P = .02). Conclusions: Serious gaps found in care planning and pt enablement at our sites support the need for 4R implementation. Even pre-4R, non standard WCPs improve pt understanding of care and ability to manage it, and reduce the impact of care complexity on pts. Providers using WCP appear to also coordinate care, but WCP itself may be an important factor of patient enablement. [Table: see text]

e12067 Background: The “NCI ASCO Teams” Project emphasized management of interdependent cancer care across specialties as crucial to teamwork, yet a considerable challenge (Taplin JOP 2015). Interdependent care requires well-managed timing and sequencing of events across specialties. We developed the 4R model (Right Information / Care / Patient / Time) to manage interdependent care and facilitate teamwork (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R is being implemented at 3 centers: academic, community and safety net. Pre-implementation, we identified guideline recommended interdependent care whose timing / sequencing is challenging, developed relevant adherence metrics and gathered current state data. Methods: Interviews with 42 clinicians across breast cancer (BC) specialties at the 3 sites, using theme analysis to identify challenging interdependent care. Guidelines and literature were used to define adherence metrics. Clinical data were reviewed for 216 Stage I-III patients at 3 sites to measure adherence. Results: We identified 7 BC interdependent care events for which timing / sequencing is a challenge - Table. Adherence ranged from 0% to 100%, and was < 50% for 5 of the 7 care events. Preoperative BRCA 1/2 results and neoadjuvant consult showed highest adherence, yet were most frequently noted as a challenge: interviewees reported substantial ad-hoc efforts applied to managing timeliness of these events. Conclusions: Identified challenges and adherence gaps support the need for the 4R implementation for systematic, consistent and timely delivery of interdependent care. Established metrics will allow pre / post 4R implementation comparison and may inform broader adoption of the 4R model. [Table: see text]

e12081 Background: Half of the women in the US undergoing annual screening mammography over 10 years require at least one additional imaging study. Of these women, 7%-17% undergo biopsies, the majority of which (77%) are benign. We sought to estimate the accuracy of core needle biopsy (CNB) by method of imaging guidance and use of vacuum assistance (VA). Methods: Data were pooled from four registries participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (bcsc-research.org) including facilities that perform both VA and non-VA CNB. Each registry collects data on screening mammography and breast pathology reports linked to their state cancer registries or regional Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of positive biopsies among all cancers diagnosed within 12 months of biopsy. PPV3 was defined as the percentage of all biopsies performed that were positive for cancer. We estimated the adjusted average population risks/rates by modality using marginal standardization with logistic regression in STATA.Results: : Among the 37,270 CNBs, breast malignancy was found in 9,241 women (28.6%), of which 2,276 (25%) were ductal carcinoma in-situ. Sensitivity was 90.5% (95% CI 82.6-98.4) for non-VA Stereotactic (n = 415), 95.4% (95% CI 94.7-96.1) for VA Stereotactic (n = 18,733), 96.1% (95% CI 95.4-96.7) for non-VA ultrasound (n = 14,803), 95.1% (95% CI 93.7-96.5) for VA Ultrasound (n = 3,271) and 82.3% (95% CI 59.9-104.6) for non-VA MRI (n = 48). PPV3 was 12.2% (95% CI 9.0, 15.3), 17.7% (95% CI 17.2, 18.3), 28.6% (95% CI 27.8-29.4), 32.1% (95% CI 30.4-33.8) and 16.9% (95% CI 5.3, 28.5), respectively. For stereotactic biopsies, VA was associated with improved PPV3 (p = 0.01) without any change in sensitivity compared to non-VA Stereotactic biopsies.Conclusions: Our multicenter data confirm that VA-stereotactic CNB and ultrasound CNB with or without VA have high sensitivity and thus represent effective alternatives to open surgical biopsy.

171 Background: The “NCI ASCO Teams” Project emphasized management of interdependent cancer care across specialties as crucial to teamwork, yet a considerable challenge (Taplin JOP 2015). Interdependent care requires well-managed timing and sequencing of events across specialties. We developed the 4R model (Right Information / Care / Patient / Time) to manage interdependent care and facilitate teamwork (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R is being implemented at 3 centers: academic, community and safety net. Pre-implementation, we identified guideline recommended interdependent care whose timing / sequencing is challenging, developed relevant adherence metrics and gathered current state data. Methods: Interviews with 42 clinicians across breast cancer (BC) specialties at the 3 sites, using theme analysis to identify challenging interdependent care. Guidelines and literature were used to define adherence metrics. Clinical data were reviewed for 162 Stage I-III patients at 3 sites to measure adherence. Results: We identified 7 interdependent BC care events for which timing / sequencing is a challenge - Table. Adherence ranged from 0% to 100%, and was < = 50% for 6 of the 7 care events. Preoperative BRCA 1/2 results and neoadjuvant consult showed highest adherence, yet were most frequently noted as a challenge: interviewees reported substantial ad-hoc efforts applied to managing timeliness of these events. Conclusions: Identified challenges and adherence gaps support the need for the 4R implementation for systematic, consistent and timely delivery of interdependent care. Established metrics will allow pre / post 4R implementation comparison and may inform broader adoption of the 4R model. [Table: see text]

55 Background: The IOM ’11 and ’13 reports recommend a written care plan (WCP) at cancer diagnosisto enable teamwork and patient (pt) engagement. Standardized multimodality WCP is a key part of the 4R model of care planning and pt engagement proposed under “NCI ASCO Teams” Project (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R (Right Information / Care / Patient / Time) is under implementation at three centers: academic, community and safety net. As current state assessment prior to implementing 4R and standard multimodality WCP, we surveyed pts not impacted by 4R on care planning, enablement and whether they received any WCP. Methods: Survey of breast cancer stage I-III pts who received care at the three sites Jan ’15 - Mar ’16, prior to 4R. We used simple frequencies and Fisher’s exact test in analysis. Results: Survey response rate: 48%, 197/410. Gaps of > 30% were reported in 6 of 8 aspects of care planning and pt enablement - Table. A non standard WCP was received by 45% of pts. Receiving a WCP impacted whether pts were clear about care (90% with WCP vs 50% without, p < .0001), able to manage own care (81% with WCP vs 59% without, p = .001) and overwhelmed (49% with WCP vs 68% without, p = .006). Care complexity was a significant factor for feeling overwhelmed by pts without WCP (60% of pts receiving > 6 care services felt overwhelmed vs. 39% of pts receiving < = 6 services, p = .04), but not a significant factor in pts with WCP (38% vs 44%, p = .7). More pts with WCP reported well managed care by providers than pts without WCP (78%, 64%, P = .04). Conclusions: Serious gaps found in care planning and pt enablement at our sites support the need for 4R implementation. Even pre-4R, non standard WCPs improve pt understanding of care and ability to manage it, and reduce the impact of care complexity on pts. Providers using WCP appear to also coordinate care, but WCP itself may be an important factor of patient enablement. [Table: see text]

Summary Background Breast MRIs have become increasingly common in breast cancer work-up. Previously obtained breast MRIs may facilitate oncoplastic surgery by delineating the blood supply to the nipple-areola complex (NAC). The aim of this study was to identify and classify the in vivo blood supply to the NAC using breast MRI exams. Methods Breast MRIs obtained over a one-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with negative MRI findings (BI-RADS category 1) were included; patients with diagnoses of breast cancer or previous breast surgery were excluded. Twenty-six patients were evaluated. Dominant blood supply was determined by maximum filling at 70 s post-contrast. Blood supply to the NAC was classified into five anatomic zones: medial (type I), lateral (type II), central (type III), inferior (type IV) and superior (type V). Results Patient age ranged from 33 to 70 years. Fifty-two breasts were evaluated and 80 source vessels were identified (37 right, 43 left). Twenty-eight breasts had type I only blood supply, 22 breasts had multi-zone blood supply (type I + II, n = 20; type I + III n = 2), one breast had type II only blood supply, and a single breast had type III only blood supply. Anatomic symmetry was observed in 96% of patients. Conclusion This study utilized MRI to evaluate in vivo vascular anatomy of the NAC, classify NAC perfusion ("NACsomes"), and assess vascular symmetry between breasts. Superomedial source vessels supplying the NAC were predominant. Preoperatively defining NAC blood supply may aid planning for oncoplastic procedures.

its subsidiaries inthe United States and/or other countries. This information is intended for medical professionals in the U.S. and other markets and is not intended as a product solicitation or promotion where such activities are prohibited. Because Hologic materials are distributed through websites, eBroadcasts and tradeshows, it is not always possible to control where such materials appear. For specific information on what products are available for sale in a particular country, please contact your local Hologic representative or write to womenshealth@hologic.com. DIVISIONAL HEADER

I respectfully disagree with Drs. Jha and Ware’s concluding statement “The CNBSS is compelling enough to never start mammograms for breast cancer but not compelling enough to stop screening.” In addition, the assumption that “If the CNBSS was the first RCT in screening for breast cancer, it is unlikely that screening would have been approved” goes against our standard methods of critical review. Regardless of the order in which data are published, we still have an obligation as scientists to uphold rigorous methodology (1). Our clinical decisions are dependent upon this adherence to proper randomized controlled trial design. Drs. Jha and Ware describe the many problems with the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS) including improper randomization, low sample size, and poor quality of mammograms. The problems significantly discount the validity of the study and call into question the results. A well-designed CNBSS would have had the results of the physical examination unknown to the personnel allocating patients to the screened group vs. the control group. Because the allocation was unblinded, a disproportionate number of advanced cancers were placed in the screening group resulting in poor outcomes. The CNBSS was not designed with enough statistical power to evaluate the benefit of screening in the two age groups (40–49 and 50–59). A tenet of quality research is to prospectively design the study to include enough patients to show statistical significance. This was not adhered to in the CNBSS (2). Finally, the poor quality of mammograms is a significant factor in patient outcome. The United States Congress recognized the importance of minimum standards. In an effort to make sure that facilities in the United States were conforming to providing quality mammography, the Mammography Quality Standards Act was passed in 1992 (3). This act requires facilities to maintain accreditation with submission of images to prove adequate image quality and to undergo annual Mammography Quality Standards Act administration. No other area in radiology has been held to the same expectations as mammography, underscoring the importance of high-quality imaging and the potential for variance at each site. It is widely recognized that poor-quality mammography leads to missed cancers. Missed cancers result in no change in mortality. To assume that we would have relied on the results of the CNBSS with the accompanying significant faults described previously, is misguided. A poorly designed study is a poorly designed study, regardless of the presence or absence of other published data.

Cadaveric or living donor renal transplantation is commonly performed in individuals with end-stage renal disease. In recent years, gray-scale sonography, coupled with color Doppler sonography (CDUS), power Doppler sonography (PDUS), or spectral Doppler sonography, has become the primary imaging modality for these patients. Postoperative serial sonography is performed to detect complications and aid in posttransplant management. In addition, sonography is used to guide percutaneous aspiration of fluid or biopsy to diagnose rejection or renal and perirenal masses. In this article we discuss the spectrum of sonographic findings, both vascular and nonvascular, of renal transplant complications, including but not limited to renal arterial and venous stenosis and thrombosis, peritransplant collections (lymphoceles, hematomas, urinomas, and seromas), posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder, and postbiopsy complications (hematomas, pseudoaneurysms, and arteriovenous fistulas). We correlate sonographic findings with those from other imaging modalities (such as angiography, CT, and MRI) and findings at surgery and pathology when possible.

mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.