A Retrospective Analysis of Diagnostic Breast Imaging Outcomes in Young Women at a Tertiary Care Center.

(1) Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of diagnostic breast imaging and the incidence of delayed breast cancer diagnosis in the study population. (2) Methods: We collected the outcome data from diagnostic mammograms and/or breast ultrasounds (USs) performed on women between the ages of 30 and 50 with symptomatic breast clinical presentations between 2018 and 2019. (3) Results: Out of 171 eligible patients, 10 patients (5.8%) had BIRADS 0, 90 patients (52.6%) had benign findings (BIRADS 1 and 2), 41 (24.0%) patients had probable benign findings requiring short-term follow-up (BIRADS 3), while 30 (17.5%) patients had findings suspicious of malignancy (BIRADS 4 and 5). In the BIRADS 3 group, 92.7% had recommended follow-up, while in BIRADS 4 and 5, only 83.3% underwent recommended biopsy at a mean time of 1.7 weeks (range 0-22 wks) from their follow-up scan. Ten (6%) patients were diagnosed with breast cancer, all of whom had BIRADS 4 or 5, with a mean time of breast cancer diagnosis from initial diagnostic imaging of 2.2 weeks (range 1-22 wks). No patients had delayed breast cancer diagnosis in our cohort. (4) Conclusions: We conclude that diagnostic mammograms and breast US are appropriate investigations for clinical breast concerns in women aged 30-50 years.

Comparison of Sonographic Findings with Diagnostic Mammography.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the leading female cancer worldwide with a high mortality rate. Early detection of the suspicious lesion is crucial for better prognosis. Higher breast density decreases the sensitivity of mammogram. Ultrasound can differentiate between cystic and solid masses and further characterize these as benign or possibly malignant. Our objective was to compare the findings of sonography with diagnostic mammography. METHODS: This was a cross sectional study including 125 females who underwent diagnostic mammogram in a tertiary care center. The mammograms were evaluated and the patients were scanned by ultrasound and categorized as per ACR- BIRADS category. The findings of diagnostic mammography were compared with that of ultrasonography using SPSS version 25. RESULTS: The heterogeneously dense breast in diagnostic mammography corresponded to the heterogenous- fibroglandular breast in ultrasonography. In majority, ultrasound increased the BIRADS category for the lesion than designated by the diagnostic mammography. It was particularly useful for category 0 and 3 lesions which were indeterminate and required further imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound was useful in evaluation of dense breasts with ACR-BIRADS 0 and 3 in diagnostic mammogram. For category 3 and 4 in diagnostic mammogram, ultrasound showed category 1 or 2 lesions which aided to alleviate patient anxiety and avoid unnecessary biopsies. With emerging technological advances in ultrasound, it can used as a powerful tool for breast lesion detection and patient management.

Clinical outcomes of screening and diagnostic mammography in a limited resource healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is a significant public health concern in Jordan. It is the most common cancer among Jordanian women. Despite its high incidence and advanced stage at time of diagnosis, the uptake of breast cancer screening in Jordan is low. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes of both screening and diagnostic mammogram among women in Jordan. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 1005 women who underwent mammography in breast imaging unit in a tertiary hospital in Jordan. It aimed to investigate outcomes of screening and diagnostic mammography. recall rates, clinical manifestations and cancer rates were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 1005 participants were involved and divided into screening group (n = 634) and diagnostic group (n = 371). Women in the diagnostic group were more likely to be younger, premenopausal, smokers with higher BMI. Among the screening group, 22.3% were labeled with abnormal mammogram, 26% recalled for ultrasound, 46 patients underwent tissue biopsy and a total of 12 patients had a diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Among the diagnostic group, the most commonly reported symptoms were a feeling of breast mass, mastalgia and nipple discharge. Abnormal mammogram was reported in 50.4% of women, a complementary ultrasound was performed for 205 patients. A diagnostic Tru-cut biopsy for 144 patients and diagnostic excisional biopsy for 17 patients were performed. A total of 131 had a diagnosis of carcinoma. CONCLUSION: With the high possibility of identifying a carcinoma in mammography among symptomatic women and low uptake of screening mammogram, efforts to increase awareness and improve access to screening services are crucial in reducing the burden of breast cancer in Jordan.

Breast Cancer Screening and BI-RADS Scoring Trends Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in an Academic Safety-Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the COVID-19 pandemic affected screening mammography rates and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) categorizations within populations facing social and economic inequities. Our study seeks to compare trends in breast cancer screening and BI-RADS assessments in an academic safety-net patient population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our single-center retrospective study evaluated women ≥ 18 years old with no known breast cancer diagnosis who received breast cancer screening from March 2019-September 2020. The screening BI-RADS score, completion of recommended diagnostic imaging, and diagnostic BI-RADS scores were compared between the pre-COVID-19 era (from 1 March 2019 to 19 March 2020) and COVID-19 era (from 20 March 2020 to 30 September 2020). RESULTS: Among the 11,798 patients identified, screened patients were younger (median age 57 versus 59 years, p < 0.001) and more likely covered by private insurance (35.9% versus 32.3%, p < 0.001) during the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. During the pandemic, there was an increase in screening mammograms categorized as BI-RADS 0 compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (20% versus 14.5%, p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in rates of completion of diagnostic imaging (81.6% versus 85.4%, p = 0.764) or assignment of suspicious BI-RADS scores (BI-RADS 4-5; 79.9% versus 80.8%, p = 0.762) between the two eras. CONCLUSIONS: Although more patients were recommended to undergo diagnostic imaging during the pandemic, there were no significant differences in race, completion of diagnostic imaging, or proportions of mammograms categorized as suspicious between the two time periods. These findings likely reflect efforts to maintain equitable care among diverse racial groups served by our safety-net hospital.

Rate and Timeliness of Diagnostic Evaluation and Biopsy After Recall From Screening Mammography in the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate and timeliness of diagnostic resolution after an abnormal screening mammogram in the ACR's National Mammography Database. METHODS: Abnormal screening mammograms (BI-RADS 0 assessment) in the National Mammography Database from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2021, were retrospectively identified. The rates and timeliness of follow-up with diagnostic evaluation and biopsy were assessed and compared across patient and facility demographics. RESULTS: Among the 2,874,310 screening mammograms reported as abnormal, follow-up was documented in 66.4% (n = 1,909,326). Lower follow-up rates were observed in younger women (59.4% in women < 30 years, 63.2% in women 30-39 years), Black (57.4%) and American Indian (59.5%) women, and women with no breast cancer family history (63.0%). The overall median time to diagnostic evaluation was 9 days. Longer median diagnostic evaluation time was noted in Black (14 days), other or mixed race (14 days), and Hispanic women (13 days). Of the 318,977 recalled screening mammograms recommended for biopsy, 238,556 (74.8%) biopsies were documented. Lower biopsy rates were noted in older women (71.5% in women aged ≥80) and Black (71.5%) and American Indian (52.2%) women. The overall median time from diagnostic evaluation to biopsy was 21 days. Longer median biopsy time was noted in older (23 days aged ≥80), Black (25 days), mixed or other race (26 days), and Hispanic women (23 days), and rural (24 days) or community hospital affiliated facilities (22 days). DISCUSSION: There is variability in the rates and timeliness of diagnostic evaluation and biopsy in women with abnormal screening mammogram. Subsets of women and facilities could benefit from targeted interventions to promote timely diagnostic resolution and biopsy after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Does diagnostic mammography need to be a routine component of the initial evaluation of a breast symptom in women 30-39 years of age?

Diagnostic mammography is routinely ordered, along with targeted breast ultrasound, to evaluate breast symptoms in women 30-39 years of age. However, in this age group, mammography is often limited by breast density and the probability of detecting an occult malignancy is low. We sought to evaluate whether diagnostic mammography detected any new incidental malignancies in women aged 30-39 years presenting with focal breast symptoms. This retrospective study included women 30-39 years of age who had a diagnostic mammogram performed for focal breast symptoms at a single institution from 2002 to 2017. Descriptive analyses were performed to determine the rate of incidental mammographic findings outside of the region of the presenting symptom that 1) led to additional imaging and/or biopsies and 2) were found to be malignant. During the 16-year study period, 1770 evaluations were performed, of which 249 (14.1%) were found to have an additional incidental mammographic abnormality. Further diagnostic imaging was required in 211 (11.3%), core biopsy in 67 (3.8%), and excisional biopsy in 8 (0.5%). None of the mammographically detected incidental findings resulted in a new diagnosis of breast cancer. In the evaluation of focal benign breast symptoms in women 30-39 years of age, diagnostic mammography did not detect any new incidental malignancies outside of the area of interest, but instead led to additional unavailing imaging and biopsy procedures. The mammography component of the diagnostic evaluation of younger average-risk women may potentially be omitted if the presenting symptom is determined to be benign with ultrasound alone.

Characteristics of Invasive Breast Cancer Detected by Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on Screening and Diagnostic Mammograms.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is added benefit for 3D mammography in the context of screening and diagnostic imaging, particularly relating to known prognostic characteristics, including histopathology, receptor status, and axillary lymph node involvement. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective review was performed of our mammography and pathology databases from October 2012 to May 2015 to identify biopsy-proven invasive breast carcinoma detected on screening and diagnostic mammograms by 2D plus 3D (2D + 3D) imaging. Percentages of cancer detection by 2D and 3D were compared. Correlation with histopathology and lymph node status was analyzed. RESULTS: Of 53 cancers diagnosed on 12 543 screening mammograms, 36 (67.9%) were better visualized on 3D (not visualized, equivocal, or only seen in retrospect on 2D). Of the 62 cancers diagnosed on 4090 diagnostic mammograms, 24 (38.7%) cancers were better detected on 3D. A statistically significant greater number of cancers were better detected on 3D in the screening compared to the diagnostic mammograms (67.9% vs 38.7%, P < .05). A significantly higher frequency of less aggressive tumors (grade I and grade II, positive estrogen/progesterone receptor, Her2 negative) was detected by 3D, with higher significance in the screening population. Additionally, there was a higher frequency of positive axillary lymph nodes in cancers detected by 3D in the screening group. CONCLUSION: Three-dimension increases invasive breast cancer detection, particularly pathologically less aggressive tumors, in both screening and diagnostic mammograms with more benefit for the screening population. Three-dimensional mammography detected more breast cancer associated with metastatic axillary lymph nodes in the screening population.

Detection of a Mammographically Occult Breast Cancer with a Challenging Clinical History.

Screening mammography has helped to identify countless incidences of breast cancer since its adoption in the 1960s. Over time, the screening guidelines and techniques have been refined to better detect malignancies and to avoid false positive results. However, weaknesses remain in mammography and represent an opportunity for improvement. The interference of natural breast tissue and glands can obscure the presence of occult breast malignancies. Additionally, the inability to differentiate breast tissue on the basis of depth, and the compounding of breast densities that occurs as a consequence of two-dimensional imaging, are setbacks when it comes to relying on mammography. User error and bias can also misguide the proper detection of underlying cancers during the radiological interpretation process. The following case represents a combination of these factors and others that culminated in a missed diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma in a young woman suffering from mastitis of the contralateral breast.

Do Primary Care Physician Perform Clinical Breast Exams Prior to Ordering a Mammogram?

Both the American Cancer Society and National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend annual clinical breast examination (CBE) along with screening mammogram (SM) for patients starting at 40 years of age. However, patients with a palpable breast mass should have a diagnostic mammogram (DM) during workup. Review at our institution demonstrated that 11% of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and self-identified breast mass had SM instead of DM. This led us to question whether primary care physicians (PCP) perform CBE prior to ordering mammography. As part of the routine preimaging screening, patients were asked if they had undergone breast examination by a medical provider prior to mammogram order. Data on mammogram type, ordering physician specialty, and presence of symptoms on day of mammogram were recorded. Of 6,109 mammograms, 4,823 were ordered by PCPs. CBE was performed prior to 67.2% SM and 64.8% DM (p = 0.12). OB/GYN performed statistically significantly higher CBE (81.6%) compared to internal (45.4%) and family (50.5%) medicine physicians (p < 0.001). Of patients with self-reported breast symptoms, 8.7% had SM ordered rather than DM. Despite recommendations, approximately 1/3 of women report not having CBE prior to mammogram. The chances of having a CBE varied significantly by PCP specialty. Lack of CBE can lead to incorrect type of mammogram, with possibly increased cost and delay in diagnosis. Further evaluation is needed to understand why CBE was not performed in some patients.