Prevalence of Modifiable Breast Cancer Risk Factors and Potential Opportunities for Primary Prevention Among Women Engaged in Screening Mammography: National Health Interview Survey Results.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of modifiable breast cancer risk factors among women engaged in screening mammography using nationally representative cross-sectional survey data and to inform potential opportunities for breast facilities to contribute to primary prevention. METHODS: 2018 National Health Interview Survey respondents who were women ages 40-74 years without history of breast cancer were included and then categorized based on whether they reported screening mammography within the prior two years. Proportions of these women reporting evidence-based modifiable breast cancer risk factors, including elevated body mass index (BMI), lack of physical activity, or moderate or heavy alcohol consumption were calculated and stratified by demographics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between these risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 4989 women meeting inclusion criteria and reporting screening mammography, 79% reported at least one modifiable risk factor. Elevated BMI was the most reported risk factor (67%), followed by lack of physical activity (24%) and alcohol consumption (16%). The majority of each race/ethnicity category reported at least one modifiable risk factor, with the highest proportion reported by Black respondents (90%). Asian, college educated, and higher-income participants were less likely to have at least one modifiable risk factor. CONCLUSION: Modifiable breast cancer risk factors are prevalent among women engaged in screening mammography. This provides potential opportunities for breast imaging facilities to contribute to the primary prevention of breast cancer by providing resources for lifestyle modification at the time of screening mammography.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.

Background To address disparities in lung cancer screening (LCS) that may exclude large numbers of high-risk African American smokers, revised U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations lowered LCS eligibility thresholds. However, there are limited recent data about the impact of newly revised guidelines on disparities in LCS eligibility. Purpose To evaluate the impact of revised USPSTF guidelines on racial and ethnic disparities in LCS eligibility. Materials and Methods Cross-sectional survey data from 20 states were retrospectively evaluated from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey (median response rate, 49.4%). Respondents without a history of lung cancer aged 55-79 years (ie, under the previous guidelines) or aged 50-79 years (ie, under the revised guidelines) were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between race and ethnicity and LCS eligibility. All analyses were performed accounting for complex survey design features (ie, weighting, stratification, and clustering). Results Under previous guidelines, 11% of 67 567 weighted survey respondents were eligible for LCS (White [12%], Hispanic [4%], African American [7%], American Indian [17%], Asian or Pacific Islander [4%], and other [12%]). Under revised USPSTF guidelines, 14% of 77 689 weighted survey respondents were eligible for LCS (White [15%], Hispanic [5%], African American [9%], American Indian [21%), Asian or Pacific Islander [5%], and other [18%]). Compared with White respondents, African American respondents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.47; P < .001) and Hispanic respondents (adjusted OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.24; P < .001) were less likely to be eligible for LCS under previous guidelines. African American respondents (adjusted OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.47; P < .001) and Hispanic respondents (adjusted OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.23; P < .001) were less likely to be eligible under the revised guidelines. The Wald test showed no evidence of differences in the degree to which racial and ethnic minority groups were less likely to be eligible for LCS when comparing previous versus revised USPSTF guidelines (P = .76). Conclusion The revised U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines (version 2.0) may perpetuate lung cancer disparities, as racial and ethnic minority groups are still less likely to be eligible for lung cancer screening. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Jacobs and Springfield in this issue.

Second primary breast cancer after diagnosis of breast cancer among male patients: An examination of population characteristics and overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Male patients with breast cancer (BrC) have increased risk of developing 2nd-primary BrC (2nd-BrC). Given the relative rarity of male BrC, population-based registries are needed to analyze overall survival (OS) outcomes for these patients. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry of patients diagnosed from 1975 to 2016, a cohort study of men whose only malignancy was BrC (BrC-O; n = 6,475), and men who developed 2nd-BrC after initial BrC diagnosis (BrC-2; n = 85) was performed. The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 2nd-BrC, Kaplan-Meier OS and multivariable Cox regression modelling were performed. FINDINGS: The SIR for 2nd-BrC was 32.95 (95%CI:[23.85-44.38],p < 0.05). The majority (88%) of 2nd-BrC for BrC-2 were contralateral from 1st-BrC; suggesting the unlikeliness of miscoding local recurrences as 2nd-BrC for most patients. There was no statistically significant difference between rates of hormone (reported in 44%) or HER-2 (reported in 33%) receptor status between BrC-O and BrC-2, albeit with limited data. The 2nd-BrC for BrC-2 was significantly more likely to be localized or distant stage (rather than regional) than BrC-O. Median OS was 103 months (95% CI: [99, 108]) for BrC-O and 62 months (95% CI [49, 128] after 2nd-BrC. When sub-grouped by BrC stage, and when analyzed by Cox regression, there was no significant difference in OS between BrC-O and BrC-2. INTERPRETATION: Patients with male BrC are at significantly increased risk of 2nd BrC, but they can expect similar post-BrC prognosis (versus those without 2nd-BrC), after adjusting for patient demographics and tumor characteristics known to affect OS. FUNDING: None.

Breast Imaging in Transgender Patients.

In the United States, at least 1.4 million adults identify as transgender. Despite growing national awareness, the transgender population experiences disparities in breast care access and breast health outcomes. One of the challenges of breast care delivery to transgender patients is the lack of evidence-based screening guidelines, which is likely partly due to the infrequency of transgender breast cancer cases. Several gender-affirming hormonal and surgical interventions are available that impact the imaging appearance of the breasts and the risk of breast cancer. Breast imaging radiologists should be familiar with the imaging appearance of expected findings and potential complications following gender-affirming interventions. It has been shown that the incidence of breast cancer in transgender women is higher than in natal males but still lower than in natal females, implying that estrogen supplementation confers an increased breast cancer risk. It is proposed that transgender women follow the screening guidelines for natal females if they have risk factors for breast cancer and received hormone therapy for > 5 years. However, further research is necessary, especially in transgender women who have no risk factors or received hormone therapy for ≤ 5 years. The breast cancer risk of presurgical transgender men is considered equivalent to that of natal females, but the risk markedly decreases following bilateral mastectomy. It is proposed that transgender men follow the screening guidelines for natal females if they have any preserved breast tissue, or that they undergo annual chest wall and axillary physical exam if they are status post bilateral mastectomy.

Is there any diagnostic value of anteroposterior chest radiography in predicting cardiac chamber enlargement?

The anteroposterior (AP) portable chest radiograph is routinely performed to evaluate cardiopulmonary status, however heart size can be misrepresented by inherent technical factors. Our aim was to determine diagnostic accuracy of cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) on AP chest radiographs relative to echocardiography, as well as relative to axial computed tomography (CT) and frontal CT scout images in predicting cardiac chamber enlargement. 200 subjects with both chest CT and AP chest radiograph within 1 month were retrospectively identified. Patients with pericardial effusion or obscured heart borders were excluded. 130 of these subjects had also undergone echocardiography. Transverse diameters of the heart and thorax were used to calculate CTRs on AP chest radiograph, scout CT, and axial CT images. A second reader was used to verify measurement accuracy and reproducibility. Statistical analysis of CTRs for AP chest radiograph, CT scout, and axial CT images were calculated using echocardiography as gold standard. AP chest radiographs had higher CTR values than axial and scout CT images (by 0.075, p < 0.001), larger measured heart diameters by approximately 3 cm (p < 0.001), and larger thoracic diameters by approximately 2 cm (p < 0.001). CTRs on AP chest radiographs calculated with a cutoff of 0.50 had sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 32%. Sensitivity and specificity were 61% and 66% respectively when using a cutoff of 0.55, and 34% and 92% respectively when using a cutoff of 0.60. A CTR of 60% is more appropriate than 50-55% when evaluating an AP chest radiograph for cardiac chamber enlargement due to its much higher specificity.