Predicting five-year interval second breast cancer risk in women with prior breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for women with a personal history of breast cancer. Risk prediction models that estimate mammography failures such as interval second breast cancers could help to tailor surveillance imaging regimens to women's individual risk profiles. METHODS: In a cohort of women with a history of breast cancer receiving surveillance mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in 1996-2019, we used LASSO-penalized regression to estimate the probability of an interval second cancer (invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ) in the one-year following a negative surveillance mammogram. Based on predicted risks from this one-year risk model, we generated cumulative risks of an interval second cancer for the five-year period following each mammogram. Model performance was evaluated using cross-validation in the overall cohort and within race and ethnicity strata. RESULTS: In 173,290 surveillance mammograms, we observed 496 interval cancers. One-year risk models were well-calibrated (expected/observed ratio = 1.00) with good accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.64). Model performance was similar across race and ethnicity groups. The median five-year cumulative risk was 1.20% (interquartile range 0.93-1.63%). Median five-year risks were highest in women who were under age 40 or pre- or peri-menopausal at diagnosis and those with estrogen receptor-negative primary breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our risk model identified women at high risk of interval second breast cancers who may benefit from additional surveillance imaging modalities. Risk models should be evaluated to determine if risk-guided supplemental surveillance imaging improves early detection and decreases surveillance failures.

Diagnostic Performance of Point-of-Care Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measures to Reduce Biopsy in Breast Lesions at MRI: Clinical Validation.

Background The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group multicenter A6702 trial identified an optimal apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) cutoff to potentially reduce biopsies by 21% without affecting sensitivity. Whether this performance can be achieved in clinical settings has not yet been established. Purpose To validate the performance of point-of-care ADC measurements with the A6702 trial ADC cutoff for reducing unnecessary biopsies in lesions detected at breast MRI. Materials and Methods Consecutive breast MRI examinations performed from May 2015 to January 2019 at a single medical center and showing biopsy-confirmed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 lesions, without ipsilateral cancer, were identified. Point-of-care lesion ADC measurements collected at clinical interpretation were retrospectively evaluated. MRI examinations included axial T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. Sensitivity and biopsy reduction rates were calculated by applying the A6702 optimal (ADC, 1.53 × 10-3 mm2/sec) and alternate conservative (1.68 × 10-3 mm2/sec) cutoffs. Lesion pathologic outcomes were the reference standard. To assess reproducibility, one radiologist repeated ADC measurements, and agreement was summarized using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results A total of 240 lesions in 201 women (mean age, 49 years ± 13 [SD]) with pathologic outcomes (63 malignant and 177 benign) were included. Applying the optimal ADC cutoff produced an overall biopsy reduction rate of 15.8% (38 of 240 lesions [95% CI: 11.2, 20.9]), with a sensitivity of 92.1% (58 of 63 lesions [95% CI: 82.4, 97.4]; sensitivity was 97.2% [35 of 36 lesions] [95% CI: 82.7, 99.6] for invasive cancers). Results were similar for screening versus diagnostic examinations (P = .92 and .40, respectively). Sensitivity was higher for masses than for nonmass enhancements (NMEs) (100% vs 85.3%; P = .009). Applying the conservative ADC cutoff achieved a sensitivity of 95.2% (60 of 63 lesions [95% CI: 86.7, 99.0]), with a biopsy reduction rate of 10.4% (25 of 240 lesions [95% CI: 6.7, 14.5]). Repeated single-reader measurements showed good agreement with clinical ADCs (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.72 [95% CI: 0.58, 0.81]). Conclusion This study validated the clinical use of ADC cutoffs to reduce MRI-prompted biopsies by up to 16%, with a suggested tradeoff of lowered sensitivity for in situ and microinvasive disease manifesting as NME. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02022579 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Honda and Iima in this issue.

Artificial Intelligence-Driven Mammography-Based Future Breast Cancer Risk Prediction: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To summarize the literature regarding the performance of mammography-image based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, with and without additional clinical data, for future breast cancer risk prediction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using six databases (medRixiv, bioRxiv, Embase, Engineer Village, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed) from 2012 through September 30, 2022. Studies were included if they used real-world screening mammography examinations to validate AI algorithms for future risk prediction based on images alone or in combination with clinical risk factors. The quality of studies was assessed, and predictive accuracy was recorded as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Sixteen studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 14 studies provided AUC values. The median AUC performance of AI image-only models was 0.72 (range 0.62-0.90) compared with 0.61 for breast density or clinical risk factor-based tools (range 0.54-0.69). Of the seven studies that compared AI image-only performance directly to combined image + clinical risk factor performance, six demonstrated no significant improvement, and one study demonstrated increased improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Early efforts for predicting future breast cancer risk based on mammography images alone demonstrate comparable or better accuracy to traditional risk tools with little or no improvement when adding clinical risk factor data. Transitioning from clinical risk factor-based to AI image-based risk models may lead to more accurate, personalized risk-based screening approaches.

The Importance of Outcomes Ascertainment for Accurate Assessment of the Mammography Screening Cancer Detection Rate: A Simulation Study.

PURPOSE: Cancer detection rate (CDR), an important metric in the mammography screening audit, is designed to ensure adequate sensitivity. Most practices use biopsy results as the reference standard; however, commonly ascertainment of biopsy results is incomplete. We used simulation to determine the relationship between the cancer ascertainment rate of biopsy (AR-biopsy), CDR estimation, and associated error rates in classifying whether practices and radiologists meet the established ACR benchmark of 2.5 per 1,000. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We simulated screening mammography volume, number of cancers detected, and CDR, using negative binomial and beta-binomial distributions, respectively. Simulations were performed at both the practice and radiologist level. Average CDR was based on linearly rescaling a published CDR by the AR-biopsy. CDR distributions were simulated for AR-biopsy between 5% and 100% in steps of five percentage points and were summarized with boxplots and smoothed histograms over the range of AR-biopsy, to quantify the proportion of practices and radiologists meeting the ACR benchmark at each level of AR-biopsy. RESULTS: Decreasing AR-biopsy led to an increasing probability of categorizing CDR performance as being below the ACR benchmark. Our simulation predicts that at the practice level, an AR-biopsy of 65% categorizes 17.6% below the benchmark (compared to 1.6% at an AR-biopsy of 100%), and at the radiologist level, an AR-biopsy of 65% categorizes 34.7% as being below the benchmark (compared to 11.6% at an AR-biopsy of 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation demonstrates that decreasing the AR-biopsy (in currently clinically relevant ranges) has the potential to artifactually lower the assessed CDR on both the practice and radiologist levels and may, in turn, increase the chance of erroneous categorization of underperformance per the ACR benchmark.

Comparative Performance of Contrast-enhanced Mammography, Abbreviated Breast MRI, and Standard Breast MRI for Breast Cancer Screening.

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and abbreviated breast MRI (ABMRI) are emerging alternatives to standard MRI for supplemental breast cancer screening. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of CEM, ABMRI, and standard MRI. Materials and Methods This single-institution, prospective, blinded reader study included female participants referred for breast MRI from January 2018 to June 2021. CEM was performed within 14 days of standard MRI; ABMRI was produced from standard MRI images. Two readers independently interpreted each CEM and ABMRI after a washout period. Examination-level performance metrics calculated were recall rate, cancer detection, and false-positive biopsy recommendation rates per 1000 examinations and sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation. Bootstrap and permutation tests were used to calculate 95% CIs and compare modalities. Results Evaluated were 492 paired CEM and ABMRI interpretations from 246 participants (median age, 51 years; IQR, 43-61 years). On 49 MRI scans with lesions recommended for biopsy, nine lesions showed malignant pathology. No differences in ABMRI and standard MRI performance were identified. Compared with standard MRI, CEM demonstrated significantly lower recall rate (14.0% vs 22.8%; difference, -8.7%; 95% CI: -14.0, -3.5), lower false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations (65.0 vs 162.6; difference, -97.6; 95% CI: -146.3, -50.8), and higher specificity (87.8% vs 80.2%; difference, 7.6%; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.1). Compared with standard MRI, CEM had significantly lower cancer detection rate (22.4 vs 36.6; difference, -14.2; 95% CI: -28.5, -2.0) and sensitivity (61.1% vs 100%; difference, -38.9%; 95% CI: -66.7, -12.5). The performance differences between CEM and ABMRI were similar to those observed between CEM and standard MRI. Conclusion ABMRI had comparable performance to standard MRI and may support more efficient MRI screening. CEM had lower recall and higher specificity compared with standard MRI or ABMRI, offset by lower cancer detection rate and sensitivity compared with standard MRI. These trade-offs warrant further consideration of patient population characteristics before widespread screening with CEM. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03517813 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chang in this issue.

Impact of Surveillance Mammography Intervals Less Than One Year on Performance Measures in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: When multiple surveillance mammograms are performed within an annual interval, the current guidance for one-year follow-up to determine breast cancer status results in shared follow-up periods in which a single breast cancer diagnosis can be attributed to multiple preceding examinations, posing a challenge for standardized performance assessment. We assessed the impact of using follow-up periods that eliminate the artifactual inflation of second breast cancer diagnoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated surveillance mammograms from 2007-2016 in women with treated breast cancer linked with tumor registry and pathology outcomes. Second breast cancers included ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer diagnosed during one-year follow-up. The cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, and specificity were compared using different follow-up periods: standard one-year follow-up per the American College of Radiology versus follow-up that was shortened at the next surveillance mammogram if less than one year (truncated follow-up). Performance measures were calculated overall and by indication (screening, evaluation for breast problem, and short interval follow-up). RESULTS: Of 117971 surveillance mammograms, 20% (n = 23533) were followed by another surveillance mammogram within one year. Standard follow-up identified 1597 mammograms that were associated with second breast cancers. With truncated follow-up, the breast cancer status of 179 mammograms (11.2%) was revised, resulting in 1418 mammograms associated with unique second breast cancers. The interval cancer rate decreased with truncated versus standard follow-up (3.6 versus 4.9 per 1000 mammograms, respectively), with a difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1). The overall sensitivity increased to 70.4% from 63.7%, for the truncated versus standard follow-up, with a difference (95% CI) of 6.6% (5.6%, 7.7%). The specificity remained stable at 98.1%. CONCLUSION: Truncated follow-up, if less than one year to the next surveillance mammogram, enabled second breast cancers to be associated with a single preceding mammogram and resulted in more accurate estimates of diagnostic performance for national benchmarks.

Breast cancer risk characteristics of women undergoing whole-breast ultrasound screening versus mammography alone.

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.

Semiannual Breast US or MRI Screening in Patients with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Background The wide variability of screening imaging use in patients with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) warrants investigation of its comparative clinical effectiveness. While more intensive screening with US or MRI at an interval of less than 1 year could increase early-stage breast cancer detection, its benefit has not been established. Purpose To investigate the outcomes of semiannual multimodality screening in patients with PHBC. Materials and Methods An academic medical center database was retrospectively searched for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2015 and June 2018 who had undergone annual mammography with either semiannual incidence US or MRI screening from July 2019 to December 2019 and three subsequent semiannual screenings over a 2-year period. The primary outcome was second breast cancers diagnosed during follow-up. Examination-level cancer detection and interval cancer rates were calculated. Screening performances were compared with χ2 or Fisher exact tests or a logistic model with generalized estimating equations. Results Our final cohort included 2758 asymptomatic women (median age, 53 years; range, 20-84 years). Among 5615 US and 1807 MRI examinations, 18 breast cancers were detected after negative findings on a prior semiannual incidence US screening examination; 44% (eight of 18) were stage 0 (three detected with MRI; five, with US), and 39% (seven of 18) were stage I (three detected with MRI; four, with US). MRI had a cancer detection rate up to 17.1 per 1000 examinations (eight of 467; 95% CI: 8.7, 33.4), and the overall cancer detection rates of US and MRI were 1.8 (10 of 5615; 95% CI: 1.0, 3.3) and 4.4 (eight of 1807; 95% CI: 2.2, 8.8) per 1000 examinations, respectively (P = .11). Conclusion Supplemental semiannual US or MRI screening depicted second breast cancers after negative findings at prior semiannual incidence US examination in patients with PHBC. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Berg in this issue.

National Performance Benchmarks for Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background It is important to establish screening mammography performance benchmarks for quality improvement efforts. Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening and evaluate performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, DBT screening examinations were collected from five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries between 2011 and 2018. Performance measures included abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate (FNR) and were calculated based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, fifth edition, and compared with concurrent BCSC DM screening examinations, previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database benchmarks, and expert opinion acceptable performance ranges. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance measures across radiologists (n = 84 or n = 73 depending on metric) and were presented as percentiles. Results A total of 896 101 women undergoing 2 301 766 screening examinations (458 175 DBT examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-111 years] and 1 843 591 DM examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-109 years]) were included in this study. DBT screening performance measures were as follows: AIR, 8.3% (95% CI: 7.5, 9.3); CDR per 1000 screens, 5.8 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.1); sensitivity, 87.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 89.4); specificity, 92.2% (95% CI: 91.3, 93.0); and FNR per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 1.0). When compared with BCSC DM screening examinations from the same time period and previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database performance benchmarks, all performance measures were higher for DBT except sensitivity and FNR, which were similar to concurrent and prior DM performance measures. The following proportions of radiologists achieved acceptable performance ranges with DBT: 97.6% for CDR, 91.8% for sensitivity, 75.0% for AIR, and 74.0% for specificity. Conclusion In U.S. community practice, large proportions of radiologists met acceptable performance ranges for screening performance metrics with DBT. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

Variation in second breast cancer risk after primary invasive cancer by time since primary cancer diagnosis and estrogen receptor status.

BACKGROUND: In women with previously treated breast cancer, occurrence and timing of second breast cancers have implications for surveillance. The authors examined the timing of second breast cancers by primary cancer estrogen receptor (ER) status in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. METHODS: Women who were diagnosed with American Joint Commission on Cancer stage I-III breast cancer were identified within six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2000 to 2017. Characteristics collected at primary breast cancer diagnosis included demographics, ER status, and treatment. Second breast cancer events included subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancers diagnosed >6 months after primary diagnosis. The authors examined cumulative incidence and second breast cancer rates by primary cancer ER status during 1-5 versus 6-10 years after diagnosis. RESULTS: At 10 years, the cumulative second breast cancer incidence was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-13.1%) for women with ER-negative disease and 7.5% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.0%) for those with ER-positive disease. Women with ER-negative cancer had higher second breast cancer rates than those with ER-positive cancer during the first 5 years of follow-up (16.0 per 1000 person-years [PY]; 95% CI, 14.2-17.9 per 1000 PY; vs. 7.8 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 7.3-8.4 per 1000 PY, respectively). After 5 years, second breast cancer rates were similar for women with ER-negative versus ER-positive breast cancer (12.1 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 9.9-14.7; vs. 9.3 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 8.4-10.3 per 1000 PY, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ER-negative primary breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of second breast cancers than ER-positive cancers during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Further study is needed to examine the potential benefit of more intensive surveillance targeting these women in the early postdiagnosis period.

Multi-pilot implementation experiences of patient-centered pathology reports: lessons learned for the advancement of patient-centered tools for cancer decision-making.

PURPOSE: New federal legislation in the United States grants patients expanded access to their medical records, making it critical that medical records information is understandable to patients. Provision of informational summaries significantly increase patient perceptions of patient-centered care and reduce feelings of uncertainty, yet their use for cancer pathology is limited. METHODS: Our team developed and piloted patient-centered versions of pathology reports (PCPRs) for four cancer organ sites: prostate, bladder, breast, and colorectal polyp. The objective of this analysis was to identify common barriers and facilitators to support dissemination of PCPRs in care delivery settings. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from pilot PCPR implementations, guided by the RE-AIM framework to explore constructs of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. RESULTS: We present two case studies of PCPR implementation - breast cancer and colorectal polyps-that showcase diverse workflows for pathology reporting. Cross-pilot learnings emphasize the potential for PCPRs to improve patient satisfaction, knowledge, quality of shared decision-making activities, yet several barriers to dissemination exist. CONCLUSION: While there is promise in expanding patient-centered cancer communication tools, more work is needed to expand the technological capacity for PCPRs and connect PCPRs to opportunities to reduce costs, improve quality, and reduce waste in care delivery systems.

Performance of Statistical and Machine Learning Risk Prediction Models for Surveillance Benefits and Failures in Breast Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) approaches facilitate risk prediction model development using high-dimensional predictors and higher-order interactions at the cost of model interpretability and transparency. We compared the relative predictive performance of statistical and ML models to guide modeling strategy selection for surveillance mammography outcomes in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). METHODS: We cross-validated seven risk prediction models for two surveillance outcomes, failure (breast cancer within 12 months of a negative surveillance mammogram) and benefit (surveillance-detected breast cancer). We included 9,447 mammograms (495 failures, 1,414 benefits, and 7,538 nonevents) from years 1996 to 2017 using a 1:4 matched case-control samples of women with PHBC in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We assessed model performance of conventional regression, regularized regressions (LASSO and elastic-net), and ML methods (random forests and gradient boosting machines) by evaluating their calibration and, among well-calibrated models, comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: LASSO and elastic-net consistently provided well-calibrated predicted risks for surveillance failure and benefit. The AUCs of LASSO and elastic-net were both 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.66) for surveillance failure and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.64-0.68) for surveillance benefit, the highest among well-calibrated models. CONCLUSIONS: For predicting breast cancer surveillance mammography outcomes, regularized regression outperformed other modeling approaches and balanced the trade-off between model flexibility and interpretability. IMPACT: Regularized regression may be preferred for developing risk prediction models in other contexts with rare outcomes, similar training sample sizes, and low-dimensional features.

Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit.

Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Children's Oncology Group Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Chest-Irradiated Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the Children's Oncology Group Guideline recommendation for breast cancer (BC) screening using mammography (MAM) and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in female chest-irradiated childhood Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), increasingly replacing MAM in practice, was also examined. METHODS: Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), BC mortality, health care costs, and false-positive screen frequencies of undergoing annual MAM, DBT, MRI, MAM + MRI, and DBT + MRI from age 25 to 74 years were estimated by microsimulation. BC risks and non-BC mortality were estimated from female 5-year survivors of HL in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and the US population. Test performance of MAM and MRI was synthesized from HL studies, and that of DBT from the general population. Costs (2017 US dollars [USD]) and utility weights were obtained from the medical literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. RESULTS: With 100% screening adherence, annual BC screening extended LYs by 0.34-0.46 years over no screening. If the willingness-to-pay threshold to gain a quality-adjusted LY was ICER < $100,000 USD, annual MAM at age 25-74 years was the only cost-effective strategy. When nonadherence was taken into consideration, only annual MAM at age 30-74 years (ICER = $56,972 USD) was cost-effective. Supplementing annual MAM with MRI costing $545 USD was not cost-effective under either adherence condition. If MRI costs were reduced to $300 USD, adding MRI to annual MAM at age 30-74 years could become more cost-effective, particularly in the reduced adherence condition (ICER = $133,682 USD). CONCLUSION: Annual BC screening using MAM at age 30-74 years is effective and cost-effective in female chest-irradiated HL survivors. Although annual adjunct MRI is not cost-effective at $545 USD cost, it could become cost-effective as MRI cost is reduced, a plausible scenario with the emergent use of abbreviated MRI.

Accuracy of tumor registry versus pharmacy dispensings for breast cancer adjuvant endocrine therapy.

PURPOSE: Accounting for endocrine therapy use for breast cancer treatment is important for studies of survivorship. We evaluated the accuracy of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) breast cancer endocrine therapy data compared with pharmacy dispensings from an integrated health system. METHODS: We included women with non-metastatic hormone receptor positive primary breast cancer diagnosed between 1995 and 2017 enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington, linking their data with SEER. We used pharmacy dispensings for endocrine therapy within one year following diagnosis as our reference standard. We calculated kappa (concordance), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) overall and stratified by woman and tumor characteristics of interest. RESULTS: Of 5,055 women, mean age at diagnosis was 62 years (interquartile range = 53-71); 53% had localized stage, 56% received lumpectomy with radiation, and 31% received chemotherapy. SEER data alone identified 67% of women as having received endocrine therapy; this increased to 75% with pharmacy dispensings. SEER's concordance with pharmacy dispensings was 0.68 (PPV = 91%; NPV = 76%). PPV did not vary by tumor or women characteristics; however, NPV declined with younger age at diagnosis (64% in < 45 years vs. 86% in 75+ years), increasing tumor stage (49% in regional stage vs. 91% in DCIS), and chemotherapy treatment (41% in those with chemotherapy vs. 83% in those without chemotherapy). CONCLUSION: Pharmacy dispensings enable more complete endocrine therapy capture, particularly in women with more advanced tumors or who receive chemotherapy. We determined woman, tumor, and treatment characteristics that contribute to underascertainment of endocrine therapy use in tumor registries.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

Trends in Annual Surveillance Mammography Participation Among Breast Cancer Survivors From 2004 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Annual mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors; however, population-level temporal trends in surveillance mammography participation have not been described. Our objective was to characterize trends in annual surveillance mammography participation among women with a personal history of breast cancer over a 13-year period. METHODS: We examined annual surveillance mammography participation from 2004 to 2016 in a nationwide sample of commercially insured women with prior breast cancer. Rates were stratified by age group (40-49 vs 50-64 years), visit with a surgical/oncology specialist or primary care provider within the prior year, and sociodemographic characteristics. Joinpoint models were used to estimate annual percentage changes (APCs) in participation during the study period. RESULTS: Among 141,672 women, mammography rates declined from 74.1% in 2004 to 67.1% in 2016. Rates were stable from 2004 to 2009 (APC, 0.1%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 0.8%) but declined 1.5% annually from 2009 to 2016 (95% CI, -1.9% to -1.1%). For women aged 40 to 49 years, rates declined 2.8% annually (95% CI, -3.4% to -2.1%) after 2009 versus 1.4% annually in women aged 50 to 64 years (95% CI, -1.9% to -1.0%). Similar trends were observed in women who had seen a surgeon/oncologist (APC, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.1% to -1.4%) or a primary care provider (APC, -1.6%; 95% CI, -2.1% to -1.2%) in the prior year. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance mammography participation among breast cancer survivors declined from 2009 to 2016, most notably among women aged 40 to 49 years. These findings highlight a need for focused efforts to improve adherence to surveillance and prevent delays in detection of breast cancer recurrence and second cancers.

Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population.

BACKGROUND: Estimating advanced breast cancer risk in women undergoing annual or biennial mammography could identify women who may benefit from less or more intensive screening. We developed an actionable model to predict cumulative 6-year advanced cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) risk according to screening interval. METHODS: We included 931 186 women aged 40-74 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium undergoing 2 542 382 annual (prior mammogram within 11-18 months) or 752 049 biennial (prior within 19-30 months) screening mammograms. The prediction model includes age, race and ethnicity, body mass index, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy subdivided by menopausal status and screening interval. We used fivefold cross-validation to internally validate model performance. We defined higher than 95th percentile as high risk (>0.658%), higher than 75th percentile to 95th or less percentile as intermediate risk (0.380%-0.658%), and 75th or less percentile as low to average risk (<0.380%). RESULTS: Obesity, high breast density, and proliferative disease with atypia were strongly associated with advanced cancer. The model is well calibrated and has an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.682 (95% confidence interval = 0.670 to 0.694). Based on women's predicted advanced cancer risk under annual and biennial screening, 69.1% had low or average risk regardless of screening interval, 12.4% intermediate risk with biennial screening and average risk with annual screening, and 17.4% intermediate or high risk regardless of screening interval. CONCLUSION: Most women have low or average advanced cancer risk and can undergo biennial screening. Intermediate-risk women may consider annual screening, and high-risk women may consider supplemental imaging in addition to annual screening.

Women's Experience With Screening Mammography During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-Institutional Prospective Survey Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate women's anxiety and experience undergoing screening mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An IRB-approved anonymous survey was administered to women receiving screening mammography across six sites in the U.S. and Singapore from October 7, 2020, to March 11, 2021. Using a 1-5 Likert scale, women rated their pre- and post-visit anxiety regarding having their mammogram during the COVID-19 pandemic, importance of observed COVID-19 precautions, and personal risk factors for breast cancer and severe COVID-19 illness. Post-visit change in anxiety was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test associations of pre-visit anxiety with breast cancer and COVID-19 risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 1086 women completed the survey. Of these, 59% (630/1061) had >1 breast cancer risk factor; 27% (282/1060) had >1 COVID-19 risk factors. Forty-two percent (445/1065) experienced pre-visit anxiety. Pre-visit anxiety was independently associated with risk factors for severe COVID-19 (OR for >2 vs 0 risk factors: 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-3.76) and breast cancer (OR for >2 vs 0 risk factors: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.17-2.50), after adjusting for age and site. Twenty-six percent (272/1065) of women reported post-visit anxiety, an absolute 16% decrease from pre-visit anxiety (95% CI: 14%-19%, P < 0.001). Provider masking (941/1075, 88%) and physical distancing (861/1085, 79%) were rated as the most important precautions. CONCLUSION: Pre-visit anxiety was associated with COVID-19 or breast cancer risk factors and declined significantly after screening mammography. Provider masking and physical distancing were rated the most important precautions implemented by imaging clinics.

Prioritizing breast imaging services during the COVID pandemic: A survey of breast imaging facilities within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

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.